Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Government Act, 1933

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has completed his discussions on 'the operation of Clause 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): These discussions are not yet finished. It may be some time before I am in a position to make a statement, but I will do so as soon as I can.

Mr. Worsley: Will my right hon., Friend bear in mind the great anxiety felt on this issue in many parts of the country? Will he also realise that the uncertainty that appertains to this subject to some extent is discouraging people from going into local government?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that nobody will be discouraged on this account. There are difficulties here. I do not think that they are seriously hampering local government work, but I am anxious to complete these consultations and see whether or not any further legislation is required.

Footpaths and Bridleways

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many county councils in England and Wales have published definitive maps of their footpaths and bridleways as required by Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): Eighteen for the whole of the county and seven for part of the county.

Mr. Johnson: Does not that reply show a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? Will not the Parliamentary Secretary express his concern at the undue delay on the part of those county councils which have not yet completed these definitive maps? Will he invite his right hon. Friend to exercise his powers under Section 37 of the Act to expedite the preparation of these maps?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend naturally wants to see an end of this task, but it is an immense one. All counties but two have published draft maps. Twelve counties have published provisional maps. This shows that the counties are getting on with the process. Shortcuts would only throw a great deal more work on the courts or produce a lot of amendments before we reached the definitive maps. Therefore, we are just letting the process carry on.

Building Site, St. Marylebone

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to enable the building site at Blandford Street, St. Marylebone, belonging to the London Electricity Board, to be developed, in view of the fact that for twelve years the London County Council has refused permission to complete the building, the steel structure for which was erected approximately fifteen years ago.

Mr. H. Brooke: This structure is the framework of a building specially designed before the war for the electricity department of the St. Marylebone Borough Council. The London Electricity Board, in which the property now vests, finds that it could not readily be


adapted for its purposes and has in mind to dismantle it. I understand that a number of applications made by private developers for planning permission to develop the site have been refused by the London County Council. None of these applicants has exercised his right of appeal to me.

Sir W. Wakefield: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is really a public scandal that this site should have been unused for all these years? Is there anything that can be done to enable a building to be put up there as early as possible? Also, will my right hon. Friend ensure that when a new building is put up there is adequate garage accommodation and off-street parking facilities for cars?

Mr. Brooke: I have said that the London Electricity Board is thinking of dismantling the present structure, and anybody can put an application to the London County Council for the development of the site. I do not know why those who have applied hitherto and have been refused have not exercised their right of appeal. I certainly should consider very carefully any appeal that reached me.

Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any application has been made for use of the site for a multi-storey garage and whether it could be used for that purpose?

Mr. Brooke: Not without notice.

Industrial Premises (Derating)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Housing and Looal Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take steps to end the derating of industrial premises.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject in the debate on 25th February.

Mr. Prentice: Is there any real reason now why industry should not pay its share? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the help that this would be to boroughs and other areas with a poor rateable value? I am thinking particularly of my own constituency of West Ham where the product of a penny irate is less than £6,000 and the rate has had to be increased by 2s. 4d. this year

largely as a result of Government financial policies.

Mr. Brooke: The position is that hardly anybody is paying rates at present at 100 per cent. of full current value. I explained in the debate that since the last revaluation and the rerating of industry to 50 per cent., industry is now paying nearly three times as great a share of the total rate burden as it paid before the revaluation.

Mr. M. Stewart: May we take it that the mind of the Minister is not closed on this matter, and that he does not regard the present 50 per cent. rating as the last word?

Mr. Brooke: I certainly do not think there can be any question in the present circumstances of altering the situation.

General Grant

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that local authorities whose educational standards are above the average are adversely affected by the system of Exchequer grants which take no account of this factor; and whether he will take steps to assist them.

Mr. H. Brooke: It seems to me not unreasonable that a local authority which decides to provide services above the average should find the extra cost itself, rather than transfer it to the general body of taxpayers.

Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister realise that the County Borough of East Ham is receiving in the current financial year about £39,000 less than was expected originally, although the Minister is paying around £9 million more over the country as a whole? Does not this illustrate the unfairness of the situation when applied to a borough with progressive educational standards but with a declining population?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question about declining population the other day. In fact, the general grant is devised so as to assist local authorities according to their needs, but, of course, if a particular local authority decides of its own free will to spend more heavily on a certain service than almost any other local authority in the country, inevitably it must bear the extra cost itself.

Mr. M. Stewart: But is not the position that a local authority which provided services above the average always found a substantial part of the cost itself? The trouble now is that local authorities which did that have had by the block grant an extra penalty imposed on them which they had no reason to expect when they developed their services.

Mr. Brooke: No, I do not think that is the case. It is true that under the old percentage grant system an authority which decided to spend more on a particular service could put 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the cost on to the general body of taxpayers nationally. That is no longer possible.

Caravan Sites (East Hill, Hastings)

Sir N. Cooper-Key: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that the development of caravan sites on conspicuous sections on and near the East Hill, Hastings, is spoiling the natural beauty of an area of much amenity value to the Borough; and whether he will withhold approval from any application to increase the number of caravans now permitted.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend understands that the Hastings County Borough Council has in recent years given permission for two caravan sites near East Hill, with certain conditions to protect the landscape. An application for extending one of these sites is now under consideration by it. My right hon. Friend cannot comment on the merits, as the case might come formally before him later on.

Sir N. Cooper-Key: In accepting the need for caravan sites in these resort areas, is not my hon. Friend aware that there is really no point in having planning control while these blots on the landscape are allowed to appear? Will he press upon the local authorities the need to restrict the sites so that they are inconspicuous?

Sir K. Joseph: These are essentially local matters. My understanding is that the chairman and vice-chairman of the planning committee concerned are looking into the matter with some care. Arrangements have been made for the council to inform my right hon. Friend's Department before its final decision is taken.

American Embassy, Grosvenor Square

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when planning consent was given to the erection of an aluminium eagle with a wing-span of thirty-five feet on the American Embasy Building in Grosvenor Square, London.

Sir K. Joseph: The design approved by the London County Council included a large cartouche on the facade. It is now proposed to substitute an aluminium eagle. The planning authority is being consulted.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman say what on earth London will look like if all the foreign Governments represented here stick up monstrous national emblems on the buildings they occupy? Is not London already defaced and scarred by all kinds of architectural eyesores and so-called planning improvements, and has not the time come to call a halt?

Sir K. Joseph: This question, along with others, will no doubt be studied by the London County Council in deciding whether planning permission is or is not required for this.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Minister consider the erection of an English lion and a Welsh dragon on top of the Ministry?

Shearbarn Farm, Hastings

Sir N. Cooper-Key: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what development plan proposals are in being at Shearbarn Farm, Hastings, where a two-storied permanent structure is now being erected.

Sir K. Joseph: This is part of an area shown in the Hastings development plan as one where existing uses were largely to remain undisturbed. Since then the local planning authority has given permission, as it was entitled to do, for a caravan camp and for a recreation hall.

Sir N. Cooper-Key: Since this recreation hall is two-storied, and, quite rightly, no permit would have been given for any single-storey dwelling, had this been requested, does my hon. Friend realise that this will be another structure


in a very beautiful spot? In future, will he discourage local authorities from putting up permanent high structures without proper authority?

Sir K. Joseph: The authority concerned was perfectly within its rights in giving this planning permission, and I must repeat that this is primarily a local matter.

Planning Appeals and Compulsory Purchase Orders

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the average length of time elapsing between the hearing of planning and compulsory purchase inquiries and his decisions thereon for the years 1957, 1958, and 1959.

Mr. H. Brooke: For compulsory purchase orders confirmed in 1957, 1958 and 1959, the average times were 12, 15 and 16 weeks respectively. For planning appeals I regret that I cannot give a figure for 1957, but the average in 1958 was 11 weeks and in 1959 10 weeks.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon. friend see if this can be speeded? While recognising that there are great difficulties, since all the inquiries come to my right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether he can devise a system whereby developers get their answers a little earlier?

Mr. Brooke: The Answer I have given to my hon. and learned Friend shows that as regards planning appeals we are cutting down the time, even though we are having to deal with a rapidly rising number of them. Many compulsory purchase orders are in respect of slum clearance cases, and I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that those cases must be examined carefully and thoroughly in order to ensure that justice is done to all concerned.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: To meet the problem of delay, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recommendation of the Franks Committee that there should be an extension of the decision-making powers of inspectors?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir, I have given consideration to that recommendation, but I think it would be difficult for me to take responsibility in this House for

decisions which have, in fact, been taken by my inspector without any reference to me.

Cannock Chase (Gravel Working)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that 20 acres of some of the most beautiful area on Cannock Chase are now to be subjected to quarrying under the terms of an authority granted in 1951; and, in view of the fact that this was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty in September 1957, whether he will immediately have this permission withdrawn in view of the public concern at this spoliation of one of the most beautiful areas in Great Britain.

Sir K. Joseph: Planning permission for gravel working was given in 1951 by the Lichfield Rural District Council. It knew that this area was likely to be designated as of outstanding natural beauty, and it imposed suitable conditions. My right hon. Friend knows of no sufficient reason to seek to have the permission withdrawn.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will cause some dismay to many people in the Midlands, for whom there are fewer and fewer areas where they can enjoy the beauty of the countryside? Is he also aware that the option to give this quarrying right was originally given before the establishment of the present county planning authority? Is he further aware that the same planning authority has recently expressed the view in a parallel case that existing resources for quarrying material are adequate? Will he please have another look at this matter, which is rather more serious than his reply would seem to convey?

Sir K. Joseph: The original planning permission was for a very much larger area, and the local planning authority has now restricted gravel working to 20 acres. It is the authority's view that gravel is urgently needed. These are not wet workings and the land will be restored to its present state in due course, though at a lower level.

Captain Pilkington: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is the third Question today about various beautiful parts


being spoiled? I wonder whether my hon. Friend's Ministry could give a better lead in this matter.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend visit the area referred to? There is considerable concern about this, and it should be looked at again.

Sir K. Joseph: There must be some sort of reconciliation between national industrial interests in a matter like gravel, which has to be taken where it is found, and the interests of local inhabitants. My right hon. Friend can intervene only when he believes that these issues are not being given proper consideration by the local planning authority.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, in the hope that I can persuade the Minister to look at this matter rather more thoroughly, and since I believe that some of his information is incorrect, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat my request that hon. Members adhere to the usual formula.

St. Martin's Place (Development)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has approved development proposals for the site adjacent to William IV Street and St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church; and what views have been expressed by the Royal Fine Art Commission.

Sir K. Joseph: The London County Council, as local planning authority, granted permission for this development in March, 1959, after consulting the Royal Fine Art Commission. The Commission recommended that the height should be reduced by one storey, but the L.C.C. considered that this would have an adverse affect on the proportions of the building.

Mr. Robinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the published sketch plans of this building suggest that while it is not, perhaps, in the Cafe Monico category, it will be a building of

little or no distinction, and totally unworthy to stand beside its uniquely beautiful neighbour? Cannot the Minister use his undoubted powers to get someting a little bit better on this very important site?

Sir K. Joseph: We cannot create beautiful design by Government will or decree. These are matters of judgment and the London County Council has its own architectural advisers.

Catherine Place and Buckingham Gate (Property Development)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether proposals to develop property in Catherine Place, Westminster, and in Buckingham Gate, have yet been referred to him, in view of the historic interest of 17 and 18 Buckingham Gate; and what observations he has made.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. The London County Council consulted my right hon. Friend about alternative schemes affecting these properties. He made no comments on the proposals for Catherine Place and No. 18 Buckingham Gate, but he said that the demolition of No. 17 would in his view be regrettable, and asked the London County Council to consult him again before it came to a decision.

Mr. Deedes: In view of the fact that No. 17 has been scheduled, and that my right hon. Friend has therefore an interest in it and a responsibility for it, can my hon. Friend say what steps will be taken if it is decided to proceed with the development as a whole?

Sir K. Joseph: We must leave this to see what is decided by the London County Council, which is considering the matter in the light of the representations being made by my hon. Friend and in the light of discussions. It will, we know, take into account my right hon. Friend's special interest in No. 17.

Civil Defence (Evacuation Policy)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsih Affairs how long discussions with local authorities' associations, whidh the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) was


informed on 21st November, 1957, were then in progress, had been proceeding before that date; and whether, in view of the short notice of the arrival of rockets expected from the Fylingdales early warning station, he will now indicate an approximate date for the publication of the report which it was indicated would be made on the completion of these discussions.

Mr. H. Brooke: In answer to the first part of the Question, about a year. In answer to the second, all the issues are being re-examined, but evacuation policy has at no time depended upon warning of an actual attack.

Mr. Craddock: Has not the right hon. Gentleman taken a long time—nearly three years—to give the House the details of the period of warning which will be given in the case of an alert? Surely the House may be told the up-to-date position, after this long time?

Mr. Brooke: As I said, this matter is being re-examined. Over the years the strategic situation has altered and developed, and it is important that our plans should be related to the situation as it is and not to the situation as it was when this examination with the local authorities was first started.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether the Government's civil defence evacuation policy continues to be based on the evacuation of 12 million people on the outbreak of hostilities; how long a time is estimated as necessary for the completion of this operation; and what is the maximum duration of the general period of alert in a time of tension, before the final warning from the Fylingdales station, that the Government expect to be able to utilise for this purpose.

Mr. H. Brooke: Evacuation problems are being re-examined. It is not possible to forecast the maximum length of a period of alert.

Mr. Craddock: In view of the Prime Minister's recent statement that if there is another war it is likely to break out not by design but by accident, surely it is rank dishonesty to claim that a warning period will be given in respect of an alert?

Mr. Brooke: These are some of the strategic considerations that I have mentioned. Hitherto our plans have been based on the expectation that a war would not break out without at least a heightening of tension.

Clean Air Act

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Clean Air Act up to the present moment; what is his estimate of the further action required to make the Act fully effective; to what extent local authorities are collaborating to enforce the provisions of the Act; and how far such proposals are hampered by shortage of supplies of smokeless fuels.

Sir K. Joseph: The main need is for more smoke control areas in the worst polluted parts of England and Wales. My right hon. Friend has not found it necessary to defer, because of shortage of smokeless fuels, any proposals made to him.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what dates he received the documents relating to clean air sent to him by the Coal Merchants Federation and the Manchester and Stoke areas; and what advice he gave in his replies to ensure the application of his clean air policy.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend first heard of these early in February, and on 16th March he told the Coal Merchants Federation in discussion that they seemed to him very undesirable. He heard about them from Manchester on 17th March, and has told them that he has made representations to the Federation; he has not heard from Stoke.

Water Supply, Knowsley

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that analysts' reports, officially obtained by the Whiston Rural District Council, show that the water supplied for use in Knowsley, Lancashire, is unfit for human consumption; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have received no information to this effect from the Council or otherwise. But I understand that a small number of houses in Knowsley are supplied with water through old pipes which tend to cause discoloration, and that the Council is now considering new arrangements.

Mr. Wilson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trouble is that this is compensation water, supplied by a neighbouring local authority? It looks as if it will be a long time before anything can be put right. Will he arrange for the local authorities concerned to be called together to see if the matter can be speeded up?

Mr. Brooke: I will certainly use my good offices, if necessary, but such information as I have leads me to think that the rural district council is pursuing this matter, and is in touch with the other authorities concerned.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman state which local authority is responsible for the supply of water?

Mr. Brooke: The Liverpool City Council is the statutory water undertaker for the whole of the rural district, but I understand there are a few houses which, under an old arrangement, are supplied from elsewhere.

Acquisition of Land

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the general misunderstanding arising out of compulsory purchase orders and other acts dealing with the acquisition of land for various purposes in Bristol and other local authorities; and if he will publish a leaflet explaining in simple language the rights of owner-occupiers, land owners and local authorities.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have heard that there has been some misunderstanding in Bristol about the effect of a slum clearance compulsory purchase order. But it has not come to my knowledge that any similar misunderstanding has arisen anywhere else, and I am sure that local authorities will supply any further explanation that is required in particular cases, as indeed I understand that the Bristol City Council is doing in this instance.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that several other Ministries issue pamphlets explaining the details of their schemes? In view of the misunderstanding that he knows exists in Bristol, will he issue a pamphlet explaining how compulsory purchase orders are initiated, the duties of local authorities under those compulsory purchase orders, and also the rights of owner-occupiers when these orders are made? Perhaps the Minister will do that.

Mr. Brooke: All this is set out in the documents now. I am afraid that inevitably they are complicated and, though I want to help ordinary tenants and owners as much as possible, my concern would be lest, by trying to set out the facts too simply, I should in fact mislead somebody as to the state of the law. I think really it is best to rely on the present regulations and to encourage every local authority to accompany with its own explanation any notice it sends out.

Mr. Awbery: The owner-occupier cannot go through all the regulations and Acts of Parliament. If the Minister or his Ministry could set out some of these Acts of Parliament and concessions so that people could understand them, that would be far better than the present situation.

Mr. Brooke: I have a great deal of sympathy with that. At the same time, I know that the House will recognise the danger of trying to get Acts of Parliament into simple language, because one sometimes may then mislead people about what is their precise legal position.

Colliery Spoil Heaps

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what response he has received in answer to Circular No. 26/59 relating to colliery spoil heaps, with particular reference to agreements that have been reached between local authorities and the National Coal Board to carry out minor improvements of spoil heaps.

Sir K. Joseph: An agreement has been reached in respect of seven spoil heaps in Lancashire. My right hon. Friend


will shortly be asking local authorities elsewhere to let him know of any progress in their areas.

Mr. Mason: Will the Minister consider going a stage further and consulting his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and the National Coal Board with a view to using the spare machinery that is becoming available because of the rundown of opencast mining with a view to effecting more improvements?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that would be a consideration to bear in mind when we receive the answer to the circular that my right hon. Friend contemplates.

Dr. Stross: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what actual assistance the Ministry proposes to give to local authorities in this matter? Is he aware that in many areas like Stoke-on-Trent these spoil heaps take up a very large percentage of the available land space?

Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question on this subject.

Dartmoor National Park (Dendles Moor and Highhouse Moor)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he refused to use his powers under Section 77 of the National Parks Act to compul-sorily acquire Dendles Moor in the Dartmoor National Park for the enjoyment of the public and the prevention of afforestation, against which he received many protests.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have no powers to acquire land compulsorily in a National Park for preventing afforestation. I have such powers for securing public access, but in the case in question a right of way is being offered by the owners of the land, so I did not consider that compulsory acquisition on that ground was justified.

Mr. Hayman: Did the Minister see the photograph in The Times of 14th March showing a prairie buster at work savaging this beautiful open moor? Will he take powers to prevent the afforestation in large measure of the National Parks?

Mr. Brooke: I certainly saw that photograph. I will not make any comment on the hon. Gentleman's description of it. This is a difficult position. I understand that the owners voluntarily consulted the local planning authority about their proposals, which are outside planning control, and that in the course of those discussions a number of concessions were offered towards amenity, but I believe that those who care for the beauty of Dartmoor are not satisfied that those concessions go far enough.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take on the application from a forestry syndicate to plough for afforestation 160 acres of Highhouse Moor in the Dartmoor National Park.

Mr. H. Brooke: No such application is before me, since afforestation is not subject to planning control.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister make further inquiries whether an application for ploughing Highhouse Moor is likely to be made next season by syndicates of wealthy people who can carry out this work because of the Surtax concessions they receive and thus deprive the public of the beauty of this National Park? If necessary, will he seek further powers by legislation?

Mr. Brooke: I am in touch with the National Parks Commission on this whole problem. I do not think that there is any question of an application being made to me, because, as I have said, afforestation is not under planning control.

Sir H. Studholme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us would like to see these places remain in the pristine state that we have always known them, there is a great deal to be said in favour of more afforestation in this country? Is not it unfair to suggest that forestry syndicates of this kind are necessarily anti-social and insensitive to amenities? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this syndicate has said that seven and a half acres of these woodlands can remain in their original state as a nature preserve?

Mr.Brooke: My hon. Friend knows that I have been keeping in touch with this


as closely as I can. I propose to have discussions with the Forestry Commission, the National Parks Commission, and others concerned about whether large-scale afforestation on these open moorlands seems likely to develop, and whether we have to look at this as a national problem. At present I must proceed under the law as it stands, and I am glad that the people who are doing this afforestation have gone some way towards meeting the criticisms that have been levelled against their activities.

Mr. Hajman: Because of the Minister's unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise these matters on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Press Conference, Cardiff

Mr. Box: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affair's what was the purpose of the Press conference held in Cardiff on 22nd March by an official of his Department; and whether it was held with his authority.

Mr. H. Brooke: This conference, which was taken by an official with my authority and not by me, because it was not to do with questions of Government policy, was arranged in order to assist the Press with purely factual information about the procedures entailed when Welsh authorities need to seek major new sources of water supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Local Authority Tenants (Eviction)

Mr. Talbot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take powers to allow an appeal to lie to him from tenants evicted by local authorities in cases not involving arrears of rent or misbehaviour.

Mr. H. Brooke: On the information available to me I do not think that this should be necessary.

Mr. Talbot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of a Mr. Gower, of which I have given him notice, the Brierley Hill Urban District Council has threatened to eject him on the sole ground that he has a telephone installed in his council house for the purpose of receiving calls for his taxi business,

which he carries on in another local authority area? Does not the Minister consider this unreasonable, and does not he think he should have power to prevent this?

Mr. Brooke: I sent out a circular to the local authorities last year inviting them to simplify their tenancy regulations and to remove any conditions that were not eminently reasonable, but I think we must leave the management of their estates to the local authorities. In the case which my hon. Friend has mentioned, I understand that it is not simply a question of the tenant having a telephone, but of him bringing his three taxis back to the estate every night and parking them either on the road or on vacant plots in the estate.

Improvement Grants

Mr. W. Clark: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities are not wholly operating the improvement grants.

Mr. H. Brooke: Of the 1,468 local authorities with powers to make discretionary grants, eighty-nine have so far made none. This may include some which have never received application for a grant. The making of standard grants is, of course, mandatory on all local authorities.

Mr. Clark: If my right hon. Friend cannot alter the legislation in order to make discretionary grants compulsory, I wonder if he would consider sending a circular to local authorities impressing upon them the urgency and importance of making discretionary grants in their entirety? There are many local authorities throughout the country—my hon. Friend said eighty-nine—which do not, in effect, operate the scheme. There are many others which operate it only partially. The constituency I represent happens to be one. Does not the Minister think it extremely unfair that the public, who think that these grants are available to them, eventually do not get paid because this is within the discretion of the local authorities?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that we should make all these grants compulsory. I believe that would be impossible, however carefully one drafted the legislation, but I thoroughly agree with the general tenor of what my hon. Friend has said.


I doubt whether this is the time for another circular, but in speeches I constantly make reference to the need for local authorities to exercise their powers in respect of discretionary grants, and I trust that my hon. Friend's Question will direct further attention to it.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of owner-occupied houses and the number of landlord-owned houses in England and Wales, and the number in each category which have been improved with grant since 1949 to 31st December. 1959.

Mr. H. Brooke: I estimate that 5 million houses in England and Wales are owner-oooupied and that 5·9 million are owned by private landlords. The total number of private houses improved with the help of grants up to the end of 1959, was 209,921, but I cannot say how many were paid to owner-occupiers and landlords respectively. I have asked local authorities to make this distinction in their returns from the beginning of 1960.

Mrs. Slater: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking that step, but is it not also true that there are about 1 million owner-occupied and 3 million landlord-owned structurally sound houses? Further, is it not true that of the 1 million owner-occupied houses, up to the end of last year about 13·5 per cent. had improvement grants, whereas only 0·5 per cent. of the landlord-owned houses had improvement grants? Does not that show that the Minister ought to do something very much more drastic than has been done so far to persuade landlords that they have a responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot confirm all the hon. Lady's figures, but I am extremely anxious that these grants should be used by landlords as well as owner-occupiers. It will be interesting to see the figures which I have now asked local authorities to let me have.

Mr. Gower: Is not the superior condition of owner-occupied houses, in many cases, a very good reason why we should never cease to try to extend the owner-occupation of private houses?

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of owner-ocupied houses and of private landlords' houses in Salford, and the number in each category which have been improved with grant since 1949.

Mr. H. Brooke: The total number of privately owned houses in Salford is about 43,000, and the total number improved with grant since 1949 is only 173, but I have not got the further information desired in the Question.

Mr. Allaun: Perhaps I could help the Minister. Is he aware that not one private landlord in Salford has taken advantage of the 1949 Act, and only seven have taken advantage of the 1959 Act, despite the fact that 11,000 people visited the demonstration houses last July, so widespread is the mothers' longing for a house with a bath and hot water? Does not this show that the Act has failed, although it is well intentioned, and that private landlordism has also failed?

Mr. Brooke: I am sorry that the experience in Salford has been disappointing. It has been much less satisfactory there than in many other cities.

Mr. M. Stewart: Can the Minister give us some examples of cities where it has been very much more satisfactory?

Mr. Brooke: There is a later Question on that point.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs the number of owner-occupied houses and the number of landlord-owned houses in Stoke-on-Trent; and the number in each category which have been improved with grant since 1949 to 31st December, 1959.

Mr. H. Brooke: The total number of privately owned houses in Stoke-on-Trent is about 59,000, and the total number improved with grant is 1,182, but I have not got the further information desired in the Question.

Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although my authority's figures may be a little better than Salford's, the number of owner-occupied houses that have received improvement grants is about twenty times as great as


the number of landlord-owned houses? Only sixty-five private landlords received improvement grants, in spite of the row of houses which were improved by the local authorities and put on exhibition. What does the right hon. Gentleman think can be done to make landlords realise their moral responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Brooke: I am hoping very much to visit Stoke-on-Trent next week, and I should like to discuss with the city council a possible extension of publicity.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities deliberately discriminate against applications by landlords—[Interruption.] I repeat—many local authorities deliberately discriminate against applications by landlords and grant applications by owner-occupiers, although the houses concerned are in exactly the same condition, and even in the same street?

Mr. Brooke: I am very much afraid that that is so. [Interruption.] I hope that the feeling shown in this House today in favour of a generous use of these grants will be reflected in the actions of all local authorities.

Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order. When a military commander or a representative of a foreign Government is attacked in this House, is it not normal for a charge made against the integrity of the person concerned to be substantiated? The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has just made a charge against the integrity of certain public bodies. Is it appropriate for him to do so without substantiating those charges?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know which public authorities were referred to.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the position in Stoke-on-Trent better than it is in Sal-ford? If so, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not all that encouraging? Is he prepared to say which authorities discriminate in the manner alleged by his hon. Friend, and also to say how it is possible to discriminate against applications which have never been made?

Mr. Brooke: I will certainly give the hon. Member any information I can in answer to a Question put down.

Mr. Lipton: Does the Minister think that the moral responsibility of landlords, or the desire to effect improvements, will be considerably improved by allowing them to charge whatever premiums they like to their victimised tenants after 6th July next?

Mr. Brooke: My present concern is to do everything in my power to encourage and stimulate landlords of tenanted properties to use the improvement grants system for the benefit of themselves and their tenants.

Houses and Flats, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many dwelling-houses and flats were completed in Wales in 1950 and in 1959, respectively; and what is his estimate of the number to be completed in 1960.

Mr. H. Brooke: The Answer is that 9,019 were completed in Wales in 1950, and 10,786 in 1959. I cannot yet estimate the number to be completed in 1960, but the number under construction on 1st January was nearly 700 higher than a year earlier.

Mr. Gower: In view of the remarkable amount of industrial development which Conservative prosperity is bringing to South Wales, will my right hon. Friend consider having a survey of what additional housing may be needed in parts of the areas which have benefited by this great development?

Mr. Brooke: I think the local authorities are doing that. I am hoping that this development will stimulate further private enterprise building in Wales.

Mr. C. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many areas in Wales, both rural and urban, since the withdrawal of the general housing subsidy no houses are being built at all, and that this is causing considerable hardship in these areas?

Mr. Brooke: Any local authority which finds itself in difficulty can apply to me for the extra discretionary subsidy.

Owner-occupied Dwellings

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh affairs how many


owner-occupied dwellings there were in England and Wales respectively, in 1930, 1950, and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. H. Brooke: Information is not available in the form requested, but the number of owner-occupied dwellings has rapidly increased in recent years and in England and Wales together is estimated now to be about 5 million.

Decontrolled Property

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to prevent landlords demanding premiums in respect of decontrolled houses and flats after 6th July next.

Mr. H. Brooke: I do not think there is a case for further extension.

Mr. Lipton: Does that reply mean that landlords will be able to charge whatever premiums they wish in respect of properly decontrolled in July, 1957—because it was over £40 rateable value in London and £30 elsewhere—and charge whatever premiums they like on property decontrolled after that date because of new tenancies being granted?

Mr. Brooke: A landlord cannot charge whatever he likes, because he may not be able to get whatever he likes. If one bans premiums permanently it may have the result only of forcing rents up higher. I doubt whether legislation against premiums would ever be so completely effective as to make it worth while as a permanent feature of legislation.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Exchanges of Tenancies (Notices to Quit)

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation restricting the right of a landlord to serve notice to quit upon a tenant within a specified interval after a freely negotiated exchange of tenancies.

Mr. H. Brooke: I assume that the hon. Member refers to statutory tenancies. Under Section 17 of the Rent Act, 1957,

statutory tenancies can be exchanged, provided the landlord and any superior landlord whose consent to an assignment would have been required are made parties to the agreement for the exchange. Each incoming tenant then remains a statutory tenant of the premises so exchanged, and has the normal protection against a landlord's claim for possession.

Mr. Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman really understand the case on which this Question is based? The gentleman concerned was the owner and occupier of a house. He wished to sell it, but wanted somewhere to live, and advertised for an exchange. He exchanged, and once he was installed in the other person's house he gave notice to the person living in his house to quit the premises. Will the right hon. Gentleman make some observation on a practice which may be legal under the Rent Act but which is an immoral and disgraceful thing to do?

Mr. Brooke: I believe the hon. Member is asking a supplementary question based on his next Question.

Tenant, Newcastle (Notice to Quit)

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what request he has received from the local authority concerned to authorise the compulsory purchase of 111 Wayside, Newcastle, on its vacation by the present tenant, Mrs. Ritchards, who has received notice to quit three months after agreeing to a freely negotiated exchange of tenancies with the present landlord.

Mr. H. Brooke: None, Sir. I understand that the notice to quit was served following damage to the property, but that it has now been withdrawn.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is quite wrong in assuming that there was any damage to the property? The notice has been withdrawn because I am raising the matter in the House today. Will he not now condemn the thoroughly disgraceful action of this landlord under the Rent Act?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I would advise the hon. Member to make further


inquiries into what actually happened in this case. I think I probably know more about it than he does. I certainly do not think that a person should be deprived of his right to serve notice to quit if the premises which are occupied by his tenant are being damaged.

Mr. Short: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, and in view of the slander on my constituent, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

New Towns (Housing Revenue Accounts)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will arrange for the publication of the housing revenue accounts of new town development corporations..

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Stewart: Since the local authorities have to publish housing revenue accounts, why should not the new town development corporations do the same? It is a matter of public interest and of interest to their tenants.

Mr. Brooke: In this we have been following the general line laid out by the Wilson Committee which advised us some time ago. I do not think that there is an exact parallel here, because the new town corporations are not in the same position as local authorities. They do not have the rates on which to draw. In the case of local authorities the accounts are published, presumably in order that the ratepayer may know to what extent he is, or may be, subsidising the rents of council tenants.

Mr. Stewart: Surely the Minister makes a decision like that on his own judgment and does not merely follow what any Committee may have said. What is the objection to publication?

Mr. Brooke: It is now about ten years since we had the benefit of the Wilson Committee which was set up to advise on the form of accounts for new towns. It did so very admirably and its Report proceeded on the principle that the various activities of a new town corporation were indivisible for accounting purposes. That has been accepted these last ten years and I think that we should stick to it.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the recent events in South Africa, he will now withdraw the invitation to the Union's Prime Minister to attend the forthcoming Commonwealth conference.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be many people not unpleased with that reply? Will he nevertheless give a further assurance that the Government will stop equivocating on this question of South Africa? Does not he think the time has now come when the Government ought to consider whether we are paying too high a price for the continued Commonwealth membership of this Nazi-like Government?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept that such wide constitutional questions arise from this Question and Answer. The Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth are invited to this conference, and among them is the Prime Minister of South Africa. By long-standing agreement internal policy is excluded from these meetings. In reference to the Question on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), which was not asked, I think we ought to take the Prime Minister's words that they agreed that
when we have differences let us face them clearly and see them for what they are. One great advantage is that we can then recognise exactly how far they extend.
I think any interchange which takes place is a good thing, and I cannot accept that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been equivocal.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman imply, by his answer, that the question of apartheid and racial controversy inside South Africa will not be discussed at the Commonwealth conference?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, that would be a deduction which I could not accept. It is not usual for the agenda of a Commonwealth conference to be published or to reveal exactly the subjects


discussed, but I would not make a deduction such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Sir G. Nicholson: Would not it be as well in considering African affairs if we in this country follow the principle which we hope will be followed by all races in Africa, namely, to remember that we do not promote love by stoking up the fires of hate?

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a great many people in this country would desire that, far from withdrawing the invitation, this gentleman should be actively encouraged to come here, and that while he is here he should be given every possible opportunity of seeing democracy at work?

Mr. Butler: There are obvious advantages in visits being paid either way. I think that when any of us go abroad we learn, and when visitors come to this country they learn. I think this interchange is one of the objects of such a conference. I would add that in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I was referring particularly to private discussions.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his earlier statement about equivocation with the terms of the Government Amendment on the Order Paper, in which they sympathise with the shooters and the shot? Can he, further, comment on the reports in the Press this morning that there are member Governments of the Commonwealth which have said that apartheid will be raised at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

Mr. Butler: I cannot comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's suppplementary question until I have examined the reports. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help to draw them to my attention. With regard to the former part of his supplementary question, I have nothing to add. I do not regard the Amendment on the Order Paper as being otherwise than clear to preserve the natural position of the House of Commons, whose jurisdiction and responsibility are clearly defined; and it goes on to express deep sympathy on what has happened.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the public's uncertainty about the character of the forthcoming Commonwealth conference, he will publish the text of the invitation sent out to Commonwealth Prime Ministers, together with the text of his explanations to Commonwealth Prime Ministers on the procedure at both full and smaller meetings.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. The character of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference will be no different from that of previous conferences in this series. I see no reason to depart from the usual rule that communications between Commonwealth Prime Ministers are confidential.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that both the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya wished the subject of racial relations in South Africa to be discussed at this conference, and whether that will be permitted? Secondly, can he give this House an assurance that the Prime Minister has not promised Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, either that this matter will not be discussed, or if it is discussed, that the attitude of the British Government will be that it is an internal matter which should be outside the general sphere of discussion?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than is constitutionally usual in reference to what is revealed and what is not revealed in relation to a Commonwealth conference. It would not be according to precedent as carried out by the party opposite when in power or by our Governments since we have been in power. But I think that if we realise what the Prime Minister has endeavoured to do in this field we can be satisfied that there will be, as I told the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, opportunity for frank interchanges during the course of these visits.

Mr. Wade: In view of the fact that the Security Council of the United Nations may be meeting at the same time as the Commonwealth conference, would the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the Prime Minister that it would add


to the prestige of the British Commonwealth as a multi-racial Commonwealth if there were a similarity of views and of voting on the part of all, or at any rate the great majority, of the Commonwealth countries at meetings of the United Nations?

Mr. Butler: It has long been clear that it is desirable there should be as much unity as possible in the Commonwealth. But it is a very wide and far-flung organisation with a great variety of views, and it takes a great deal of wisdom to carry it all together.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? In answer to an earlier supplementary question, he said it was not the custom for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference to consider the internal affairs of any one country. But he also said, in answer to a supplementary question of mine, that this did not preclude them from discussing apartheid and the racial policy of the South African Government. Are we to understand, therefore, that those policies are not regarded by the British Government as the internal affairs of the South African Government?

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He will remember that immediately afterwards I used the expression that such questions would be most likely to arise in private discussions which take place. Normally, the internal affairs of a particular Government are not on the agenda of the Commonwealth conference.

SHIPPING

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the shipping industry, he will detach the subject of shipping from the Ministry of Transport and recreate the Ministry of Shipping or associate shipping with the Ministry of Aviation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The distribution of functions within the Government depends upon a number of circumstances, which vary from time to time. Last October my right hon. Friend made certain new dispositions in the field of transport. These have not been in existence very long and we

should, I think, see how things work out before considering any further changes.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the Minister of Transport has undertaken far too many responsibilities? He is responsible for roads and rail and now shipbuilding, which was transferred from the Admiralty, and in point of fact treats shipping—a very important subject of great national interest—in a casual fashion. Would not it be desirable, in view of the Minister's lack of knowledge about shipping, to detach this very important subject from his Ministry?

Mr. Butler: I think that my right hon. Friend would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, in which I think there is a certain amount of sense; but at the same time we have only just made a change and I am satisfied, as is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, by the activities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in relation to the shipping industry which I think have full approval. I think we had better let things develop as they are at the moment.

Sir W. Wakefield: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, because of the development of the hovercraft, it is desirable that the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport regarding shipping and the responsibilities of the Minister of Aviation should be associated? Already one Department has claimed the hovercraft as a ship and another Department suggests that it is an aircraft. Therefore, is not it desirable that this matter be looked at? Perhaps a happy solution would be to associate shipping and aviation?

Mr. Butler: That is a further suggestion, but I think we had better leave things as they are at the moment, including the definition of Whitehall jargon.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the view I expressed, and which is implied in my Question, represents the considered opinion of the vast majority of ship owners in this country who are dissatisfied—they have expressed their dissatisfaction in private,


if not in public—with the position as it is at present and wish to have shipping considered as a special subject?

Mr. Butler: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman got quite a kindly Answer—I only asked him to be patient—and that is more than he usually gets. Therefore, I hope he will be patient in this matter.

IPSWICH BOROUGH LABOUR PARTY (RESOLUTION)

Mr. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received the resolution sent to him by the Executive Committee of the Ipswich Borough Labour Party deploring the recent massacre in the Union of South Africa arising out of the racial policy of the Union and expressing the opinion that it is the duty of the Government of the United Kingdom to make a contribution towards the relief of the victims and their dependants; and what reply he has sent or proposes to send.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has received this resolution. It has been acknowledged and the writer informed that its terms have been noted.

Mr. Foot: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first part of the resolution almost certainly represents the views of the great bulk of public opinion in this country? Will the Government consider ways in which they can give effect to the second part of the resolution?

Mr. Butler: The Government have already tabled an Amendment to the Motion on the Order Paper, which I think indicates our views on this matter. The hon. and learned Member can regard that as an answer to the first part of his supplementary question. I cannot give any further answer than was given by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations in relation to compensation. In regard to the British subjects involved, the High Commissioner has not

yet sent us a full report. The only information available is that one Mosuto, who would be in our general care as a British subject, was injured. We are awaiting the report of the High Commissioner on this matter.

Mr. P. Williams: Before going further in emotional criticisms of South Africa in this House, would it not be better if the House could be fully informed of the facts of the situation in the Union, particularly in relation to intimidation and who in fact started the firing in the recent regrettable incidents?

Mr. Butler: The South African Government have issued their own statement and at this stage I have no other document to which to refer my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gaitskell: Since the Government Amendment expresses sympathy with South Africa, would it not be a good plan if the Government were to give practical expression to that sympathy by contributing to a fund for the relief of the victims and their dependants?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend the Minister of State explained the position in this sort of case and the difficulties of so doing, but made an exception in the case of those who are British citizens. That is why I drew attention to the one casualty of which we are at present aware and upon which we are awaiting a further report from the High Commissioner.

Mr. Gaitskell: Surely it is not usual to confine a practical expression of sympathy and a contribution to a fund to those who are British subjects in Colonial Territories? Do we not frequently make contributions to funds for the relieving of distress in other countries?

Mr. Butler: The question arises of what the right hon. Member means by "relief of distress". It is not easy to find an exact precedent for a situation of this sort which falls within the jurisdiction of another Government. That is why the spokesmen of Her Majesty's Government have deliberately confined themselves to the question of those who may be of British citizenship.

WAREHOUSE FIRE, GLASGOW

Mr. Lilley: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the fire at Warroch Street, Glasgow last night in which 18 firemen lost their lives.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. S. Maclay): I am sure that all Members of the House will have been greatly shocked to learn of the losses which Glasgow Fire Brigade has sustained in a major fire which broke out in a bonded warehouse in the Anderston district of the city last night.
I understand that 14 members of the brigade and five members of the Glasgow Salvage Corps lost their lives, and the deepest sympathy of this House, and, indeed, of the whole country, will go out to their relatives in their bereavement.
This disaster is a reminder of the hazards that the members of our fire brigades and salvage corps constantly face with unfailing courage and devotion to duty and the men who were killed have given their lives in upholding the great traditions of their service.
I understand that the heavy loss of life was due primarily to a violent explosion that blew out one side of the warehouse soon after the fire started. Fire fighting operations are still continuing, but the situation is now under control. The cause and course of the fire will, of course, be investigated in the normal way.

Mr. Lilley: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement he has made and associate myself with my constituents in Kelvingrove in the expression of sympathy to the relatives of the men who died? They died to prevent a greater disaster, and I trust that the Government will see to it that their dependants are immediately attended to. I understand since coming to the House today, that 10 families have suffered and that 30 children have been left fatherless. It is my sincere hope that they will be attended to.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered the advisability of bonded warehouses being in residential areas? Would he consider advising planning authorities throughout the country to consider this matter seriously when proposing to give planning authority?

Mr. Maclay: Widows of firemen will be entitled to pensions under the Fire-

men's Pensions Scheme and I understand that immediate payments will be made from the Fire Service National Benevo-dent Fund and also by the Fire Brigades' Union in cases of need. The National Assistance Board is, of course, available to provide help if necessary—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] That is subsidiary to what I had already said; the first part of my supplementary answer is the operative part, but the National Assistance Board can also help. I understand that the Lord Provost of Glasgow is launching a disaster fund.
I have noted what my hon. Friend has said about bonded warehouses in built-up areas, but I do not think that he would expect me to deal with that matter in detail today.

Mrs. Cullen: We on this side of the House desire to be associated in sympathy with the folks in Kelvingrove and especially those who have been bereaved. We hope that National Assistance will be kept out of this question and that people will not have to go to the Assistance Board as a result of this terrible tragedy.

Mr. T. Fraser: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the message of sympathy to the relatives of the deceased and our sympathy with the many who have suffered very great injury in this tragic event? May I also associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with what the Secretary of State said about the gallantry of these firemen and salvage workers? It is only on occasions such as this that we have brought home to us the great services that these people render to the rest of the community.
I ask the Secretary of State to give most serious consideration to the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) that he will consider whether it is in the public interest that bonded warehouses should continue to be situated, as they are, in these congested areas of population? I understand, of course, that it would be unrealistic to ask that those which are there now should be moved, but it may be desirable for the right hon. Gentleman to provide that when these places are established in future they will be established in less heavily populated parts of the country.

Mr. Maclay: I have noted very carefully indeed the points made about the siting of bonded warehouses in future.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: I happen to know, because he courteously gave me notice, that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wishes to raise a point of order with me and I think that this is the best moment to do so.

Mr. S. Silverman: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order which, I think, may be of general interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. On 23rd March, I sought to put down the following Question to the Foreign Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: We are going to be in the same difficulty as the hon. Member in that our rules prohibit us from reciting the terms of a Question sought to be put down and refused. I shall be obliged, I suppose, to indicate the effect of the Question and perhaps the hon. Member can do it that way.

Mr. Silverman: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and I only sought to read the Question on this occasion because I think that the point I have in mind cannot really be adjudicated without reference to the terms of the Question, so that hon. Members may have some knowledge of the point I have in mind and will appreciate what I am putting.
The Question which I sought to ask was in these terms, "To ask the"—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can help me by making the point which Iknow that he wants to make by summarising the effective words from the text and not reading it.

Mr. Silverman: I sought to put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary asking what instructions he would give concerning events in South Africa to the United Kingdom delegation at the next meeting of the United Nations. On the advice of the Table, I altered the Question a little so as to ask not what instructions he would give, but what consideration he would give to the matter. It was even then held that the Question was not in order and on reference to you. Sir, you upheld that Ruling.
The reason for that Ruling, as I understand it, was that on 7th December last the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs had answered a similar Question. In

his Answer he made it clear that, in his opinion, these matters being well within the domestic sovereignty of the Union of South Africa, the United Nations had no jurisdiction and, therefore, it was impossible for him to give any instructions concerning it. The view had been and remained that this was not a matter with which the United Nations was concerned, and, therefore, no instructions could be given.
It was held—I do not complain of it —that under our rules, unless there is sufficient change of circumstances, when a Question of that kind has been answered it cannot be repeated in the same Session. I therefore sought to ask a Question framed rather differently, which was ultimately approved and is now upon the Order Paper.
In view of that, I was a little surprised to see in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had asked a Question, which again I need not read, although it is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which seems to raise substantially the same point as I had sought to raise. It is perfectly true, without refining too much upon it, that there are some differences, but I submit that the differences are not material and that in his first supplementary question my hon. Friend asked the very Question which I had sought to ask.
I do not complain of that, because I agree that the matter had become urgent and that it was important to the House of Commons that the Foreign Secretary should have the opportunity of dealing with it. However, it would be most unfortunate, and I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would resent it, if our Standing Orders were to be more elastically or benevolently interpreted with regard to some hon. Members than with regard to others. I hope that you, Sir, will think Iam justified in raising this point.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this, because I would hate anyone to think—not only the hon. Member, but anyone—that the rules were adjustable as between one hon. Member and another. It is not so. My decision may be right or it may be wrong, but it is bona fide taken on a principle that the hon. Member well understands, because we discussed it together.
I took the view that the Written Answer to which he has referred, of the Minister of State, on 7th December last, had the effect—I think that the hon. Member put it substantially correctly— of precluding any other Question during this Session requesting the intervention of the Government at the United Nations upon the topic covered by that Answer. That is the point.
In my view, there was a difference of substance between both the first and second versions of the hon. Member's Question and the Question proposed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). The difference is this. The hon. Member and I, in discussion, were seeking some new factor to get out of the difficulty created by the Question of 7th December. Indeed, we parted company with myself suggesting ways by which the hon. Member might get round the difficulty. That was some time on Thursday.
After we had met, there came the news of this specially appointed debate before the Security Council. That seemed to me to be so pregnant with ability to raise Questions in the field the hon. Member was looking for that I took steps to see that some communication should be made to him. I regret to say that that was not possible, it being Friday. It was not the hon. Member's fault. I think that he was not here. We could not get the suggested Question to him until we could do so by telephone on Monday morning.
The hon. Member will see that the essential distinction between the Question asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, and his own Question, which now appears on the Order Paper for tomorrow, on the one hand, and the two Questions which he sought to put down before, is this. Both the Private Notice Question and the hon. Member's Question down for tomorrow hang and depend upon what has arisen as a result of the appointment of the special debate for the United Nations to debate the matter. That may be right or it may be wrong, but it is my decision and it in no way depends upon distinctions between hon. Members.

POST OFFICE (STATUS)

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a short statement about the future of the Post Office.
The Government have decided to give practical recognition to the commercial character of the Post Office. A Command Paper, which is now available in the Vote Office, describes how it is proposed to give effect to this.
The Government's intention is to separate the current finances of the Post Office from the Exchequer. A Statutory Trading Fund for the Post Office under the control of the Postmaster-General would be set up. All Post Office receipts would be paid into it; all Post Office payments would be met out of it. The Postmaster-General's power to draw on the Fund would lapse unless it were renewed each year by an affirmative Resolution of the House.
The commercial character of the Post Office has already been recognised in some degree. These proposals will complete this process by giving the Post Office statutory recognition as a self-contained business. They will encourage the Post Office to approach the problems or organisation and management more commercially and to evince an even greater sense of enterprise in providing services which satisfy the needs of the whole community.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In welcoming what sounds like a freedom charter for the Post Office, I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being the first Conservative Postmaster-General to bring forward such a progressive step. I presume that we shall see the fuller extent of it in the White Paper. I only want to say now that I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not succumbed to the blandishments from this side of the House, which has been advocating this for a long time.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this means the end of the Post Office as the instrument of taxation? Will he say a word about the position of Post Office workers? Will he also say whether there is to be any weakening of Post Office accountability? Finally, may we have an assurance that we shall have a debate before the legislation?

Mr. Bevins: The question of a debate is for the usual channels, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but I am sure that an interchange of views on this subject would be helpful to the Government.
On the question of Parliamentary control, the right hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the White Paper that we are proposing, among other things, that my power to draw on the Post Office Fund should lapse, unless it is renewed by affirmative Resolution every year, and that effective Parliamentary control is preserved in the case of the Post Office Post Office staffs will retain their full status as civil servants, as now.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon Gentleman say now whether this will involve freedom by the Post Office to deal with capital assets belonging to the Post Office, as is rather indicated in some reports in the newspapers this morning?

Mr. Bevins: That is one of many matters which will flow from the fact that the Post Office will be behaving in a more commercial fashion.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the new arrangements will in no way limit the powers of hon. Members to question him, as heretofore?

Mr. Bevins: It will not limit hon. Members in any way at all.

Mr. Albu: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these new arrangements will assist the Post Office to make good its present serious shortage of scientific and technical staffs necessary to provide the essential technical research and development that the Post Office so badly needs?

Mr. Bevins: I should have thought that most right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with the Post Office are, on the whole, well satisfied with the research work going on at Dollis Hill, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular part of research in mind I should be glad to discuss it with him.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question whether or not Post Office charges will now completely disappear from the Budget statement?

Mr. Bevins: That is perfectly true.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Postmaster-General aware that there are some hon. Members on this side—and, I believe, on the other side, too—who would prefer not to come to any very firm conclusion on the very brief statement that he has made without having had an opportunity of very carefully scrutinising in detail the proposals that he has briefly adumbrated to the House today?
Further to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has said, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to make quite sure that the House will have at least a day in which to consider changes that may be very fundamental to the Post Office, and upon which there may be various points of view, on principle as well as on detail?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. I well appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have already said that, for my part, I should welcome an exchange of views.

Mr. Mason: While not wanting to commit my right hon. and hon. Friends about the contents of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, having in mind the remarkable relations existing between the Post Office and its unions, am I correct in assuming that the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union will be quickly consulted immediately following publication of the White Paper?
Further, if the proposals of the White Paper are finality adopted, will the staff of the sales department of the Post Office—who, for most of the time in the post-war years, have been telling people why they cannot have telephones—act in accordance with the last paragraph of this statement by using salesmanship and advertisement?
Finally, as the proposals will, if agreed to, mean legislation, is the Postmaster-General aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends will certainly want a day's debate on them?

Mr. Bevins: I have, of course, already said that the status of Post Office workers is not affected at all by the proposals in the White Paper, and, to that extent, consultations are not really necessary. Telephone development throughout the country hinges, of course, on the


future of capita] investment, and the Post Office, like other nationalised industries, is subject to Government control.

rose—

Mr. Speaker: The statement puts no Question before the House. We really cannot debate it.

Mr. Short: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you will consider it as a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: If it is not, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not raise it as such.

Mr. Short: My point is that in all the supplementary questions nothing has been said about the Post Office user. Will you allow a supplementary question on that?

Mr. Speaker: No. What one has to do is to bring these discussions on statements to an end, always leaving in the air a number of brilliant points still to be raised.

SPECIAL COMMISSION (SUEZ OPERATIONS)

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to constitute a special commission to inquire into the origin, inception and conduct of the operations by British forces directed at Suez and elsewhere in Egypt in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six.
This is the third occasion upon which we on this side of the House have called for an inquiry in one form or another into the Suez operations. The first was in December, 1956, and the second was at the end of 1958, after the publication of Mr. Randolph Churchill's articles in the Press. Mr. Churchill, as hon. Members will recall, examined the question of collusion between the British, French and Israeli Governments, and arrived at this verdict. He said:
The proof that there was collusion is massive and conclusive.
The Foreign Office stated that Mr. Churchill's conclusions were wrong though, for reasons best known to itself, it always declined to enter into any particulars. Now, fifteen months later, we have the publication of Sir Anthony's Eden's memoirs. The remarkable thing about those memoirs is that nearly all the vital questions on the Suez operations are left unanswered. But everything that he says—and, perhaps more important, everything that he does not say—underlines and strengthens the suspicion that there was collusion or, as I would prefer to say, connivance at what the Israelis were about to do at the end of October.
I should like to cite just one passage. In dealing with the meeting with French Ministers in Paris on 16th October, Sir Anthony speaks of the dilemma that would have arisen if Israel attacked Jordan. He says:
If there were to be a breakout it was better from our point of view that it should be against Egypt … we discussed these matters in all their political and military aspects. In common prudence we had to consider what our actions should be, for our two countries were, as we knew, the only powers to have effective military forces in command in the area.
Sir Anthony goes on to say how, on 25th October, the British Cabinet discussed the specific possibility of conflict between Israel and Egypt, and decided


in principle how they would react if this occurred. From his own memoirs it appears that it was not until 30th October, after the Israeli attack, that any intimation of our intentions was given to our American allies.
Mr. Speaker, here is an issue that will always be a matter of acute controversy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), in this House, and Sir Anthony Eden, who has access to official documents that are denied to the general public, can, of course, give their own versions of these events, but the Government persist in their refusal to hold an inquiry. I submit to the House that, in so doing, they are acting in flagrant breach of the traditions of Parliament.
In the past, whenever there has been a considerable military reverse, or when it has been suggested that Ministers have misled the House in a matter of great consequence, this House has almost invariably demanded an inquiry, and that demand has been acceded to, generally without demur, by the Government of the day.
Just over a century ago there was an inquiry into the conduct of the war in the Crimea. The precedents were reviewed on that occasion by Lord John Russell, who said:
Inquiry is the proper duty and function of the House of Commons. When the British arms have suffered a reverse this duty has always been performed. Thus, when Minorca was lost in 1757, Mr. Fox consented to an inquiry. Thus, when General Burgoyne capitulated in 1777, the House of Commons inquired into the causes of the disaster. Thus, when the Walcheren Expedition failed in obtaining the chief objects of the enterprise, the House of Commons inquired. Inquiry is, indeed, at the root of the powers of the House of Commons Upon the result of the inquiry must depend the due exercise of those powers. If from vicious organisation the public offices are ill-administered, the remedy is better organisation If from delay and confusion in the execution of orders inquiry has arisen, the subordinate officers should be removed. If from negligence, incompetency or corruption, the Ministers are themselves to blame for the failure which has been incurred, the Ministers may, according to the nature and degree of their fault, be censured or removed or punished.
On this occasion, we do not accuse Ministers of corruption—unless it be corrupt to give misleading and tendentious Answers in the House of Commons

—but we do accuse them of negligence and gross incompetency.
This Motion refers to the origin, inception and conduct of the Suez operations. It follows precisely the words of the Special Commissions (Dardanelles and Mesopotamia) Act, 1916. Forty-four years ago, in this House, Sir Edward Carson moved for a special commission to inquire into the unsuccessful operations at the Dardanelles and Gallipoli. His original Motion referred only to the conduct of those operations. It was the Ministers and ex-Ministers who were themselves closely concerned who insisted upon the widening of the terms of reference. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), as First Lord, had been the principal architect of the Dardanelles expedition, and he himself moved an Amendment to insert these words:
The circumstances in which, and the authority upon which, the naval and military expeditions to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli were undertaken.
Mr. Asquith, as Prime Minister, preferred another Amendment, which was eventually adopted as being the widest possible Amendment that he could find. Thereafter, all the Cabinet Ministers and heads of Services who had been involved gave evidence before the Commission. How very different were the standards of ministerial conduct in those days!
I take one other example later in the First World War. In 1918, as hon. Members will recall, it was suggested by General Sir Frederick Maurice that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had given misleading information to Parliament. Again, there was a demand for an inquiry, and on 7th May, 1918, Mr. Bonar Law, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also the Leader of the Conservative Party, gave this reply to Mr. Asquith:
… in as much as these allegations affect the honour of Ministers, the Government proposes to invite two of His Majesty's Judges to act as a Court of Honour, to inquire into the charge of mis-statements alleged to have been made by Ministers, and to report as quickly as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th May. 1918; Vol. 105, c. 1982.]
The only reason why that inquiry did not take place was because Mr. Asquith and his friends insisted instead on a Select Committee. The Government thought that that was an inappropriate tribunal, which would take far too long,


but if Mr. Asquith had accepted the original proposal an inquiry by two judges there certainly would have been. Here again, we have allegations which affect the honour of Ministers, but what a very different reaction we get.
My last example is taken from the Second World War. In a former debate on this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) read a passage from the memoirs of the right hon. Member for Woodford—his memoirs of the last war—in which he said:
I judged it impossible to hold an inquiry by Royal Commission into the circumstances of the fall of Singapore while the war was raging. We could not spare the men, the time or the energy. Parliament accepted this view; but I certainly thought that, in justice to the officers and men concerned, there should be an inquiry into all the circumstances as soon as the fighting stopped.
If time permitted, I could give a great many other examples. But I hope I have given sufficient to show that this persistent refusal by the Government to hold an inquiry into the Suez operations represents a new, and, as I believe, a wholly lamentable, departure from our Parliamentary tradition.
Finally, I would like to put one question. Why is it that Ministers on the Treasury Bench are so willing to grant an inquiry into the conduct of others, but never into their own? If somebody raises a question as to the behaviour of the police, whether in Caithness or Blantyre, an inquiry is almost immediately held. If it is suggested that African Nationalist leaders have engaged together in a massacre plot, then again we have an inquiry, however reluctant the Government may afterwards be to accept its findings. But when it is Ministers themselves whose conduct is impugned, then darkness falls. Without a rational explanation, we are told again and again that these events must not be subject to any inquiry whatever, in any form and at any time.
We on this side of the House believe that this is a very serious matter—not a party matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We regard it, and I have tried to present it, as a House of Commons matter. I have suggested that earlier Parliaments would certainly have insisted on an inquiry into these events. I believe that by refusing an inquiry, the Government are setting a new and ominous precedent

for the future, and that is why some of my hon. Friends and I have put down this Motion.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I rise to oppose the Motion, and I do so for two reasons. The first is that the effect of what the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) has proposed to the House could very easily damage international relations— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as I hope to be allowed to show, and so imperil peace. The second reason is that even if such an inquiry were held, the subject is of such a nature that no positive conclusion could be reached and no useful purpose would be served.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Braine: I would have thought that, as to the first, it must be apparent to all that the Middle East is still an area of great sensitivity and potential danger. Its peoples are all too ready to react—[Interruption.] I thought that peace was a matter of some concern to hon. Members opposite. Its peoples are all too ready to react to ill-considered words, and reminders of past conflicts and present grievances.
Recent events on the Syrian border have shown how quickly tension can be brought to breaking point, and how swiftly animosity can burst into flame. Surely, against this background, it should be the aim of all of us in this House so to conduct ourselves and so to weigh our words that we reduce the tension, if we can—not add to it.
Surely, too, it should be our purpose— [Interruption.] I have a great deal of time in which to develop my argument. I wish to be brief, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not attach importance to the matter, I must tell them that we on this side do. It should surely be our purpose to make a start towards solving the vexed problems of the Middle East, not to exploit lingering bitterness and distrust. We all know, if we are honest with ourselves, just how deep divisions run in the Middle East, how great the obstacles are to settlement, and how manifold are the dangers.
Can anyone in his senses conceive of a better way of embittering those feelings, of heightening the tension and of increasing the danger, than by the kind


of inquiry which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests?
Consider the likely effects of what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that any commission of ours would have the last word. The other interested parties—the Egyptians, the Israelis, the French, the Russians and the Americans—all would be led by our actions, and probably forced, into publishing versions of their own, and only a fool would imagine that the various versions could be reconciled. That would start a war of words. It would solve nothing. It would merely add to the controversy in a situation in which there is no hope whatsoever of reconciling the various views.
But we could be absolutely certain of one thing, as certain as night follows day. Whether the other participants produced their own versions or not, our own, however carefully balanced it might be, would inevitably revive the Anglo-Egyptian quarrel, a quarrel with a country with which we have been labouring during the past year to rebuild our relations.
I submit that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had really given serious thought to his ill-considered proposal, he would have realised that any inquiry into Suez, however conducted, must entail a close scrutiny of the policy, attitude and activities of Egypt in the period prior to the Suez intervention. That story is not a pleasant one. It is bound to involve an account of the events leading up to the seizure of an international waterway. It is bound to include reference to the Fedayeen raids across the borders of Israel. Inevitably, whatever the rights or wrongs—I am not at the moment concerned with the rights or wrongs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is quite clear from these interruptions which side of the House has the most to conceal. Otherwise, hon. Members opposite would listen to the argument.
As I say, whatever the rights or wrongs of the issue—I am weighing my words very carefully—the Egyptians would be bound to reply in self-defence. We should once again be plunged into a welter of recrimination and counter-recrimination with an important country of the Middle East with which we wish

to rebuild our relations. Surely the House recognises the progress which was made last year, the financial settlement and the resumption of diplomatic contacts. Are not these good things? Are not the bridges being repaired? The hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking this afternoon to demolish them.
Nor does the matter end there. An inquiry would have to take into account consideration of whether, and if so how far, the Soviet Union made a contribution to events leading to the crisis. Is this really the moment, when we are on the eve of Summit talks, when all our hopes are directed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Write a book about it."] It is very strange that hon. Members opposite should listen with such rapt attention to an account of what happened in the Seven Years' War and what happened in the Crimean War. I am dealing with the realities of today. Apparently, these matters did not enter the thoughts of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich.
Is this the moment, when all our hopes are pinned to the possibility of achieving better understanding beween East and West, to start a public wrangle which must inevitably involve not only our French and American allies, but the Russians as well?
Consider now the futility of what is proposed. The Suez intervention undoubtedly struck a deep division in our country. There are many of us who thought that it was right. There were some who thought that it was wrong. There were some who thought that it was right, but that it was wrong not to see it through to the end. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the matter, am I not right in saying that the subject was debated in the House and the country ad nauseam? The inquest was held, and, at the end of it, the nation gave its verdict in no uncertain terms. Indeed, since the publication of Sir Anthony Eden's book, and since the General Election, there have been two by-elections in which the electors have again expressed their view.
Quite sincerely, I apreciate that, until the end of his days, the hon. and learned Gentleman will persist in his view that Sir Anthony Eden was wrong. For my part—and with much greater humility, may I say—I believe that he was right.


What useful purpose could be served by making over the ashes of this controversy now? Is this proposal made to serve the cause of objective truth? Or is it to serve a dubious political manoeuvre? I refuse to believe the right hon. and hon. Members opposite, in their heart of hearts, really want to go all over these things again. I do not believe so. But if they do the nation will assuredly draw the conclusion that, afraid to face the problems of today and tomorrow because of their internal dissensions, the Opposition are forced, in order to gain some political advantage, to try to make capital out of yesterday's difficulties.
Let us assume for a moment that the House accedes to the request for an inquiry. Where would the inquiry begin and where would it end? Who would be called to give evidence? Last week, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), for whom I have great regard, suggested, rather unwisely I thought, that the inquiry should begin with the consultations between Governments just before the intervention. The matter goes back much farther than that. It goes back at least to the point where our American friends and allies failed to recognise that survival and stability in the Middle East depended upon joint Anglo-American action. This was what Sir Anthony Eden tried in vain to impress upon President Eisenhower in February, 1956, months before the Canal was seized.
Where would the inquiry end? Not where it would suit the convenience of

the hon. and learned Gentleman, at the cease-fire, at the point of seeming failure, but, rather, at the point where the lesson was learned and applied in the Anglo-American intervention in Jordan and the Lebanon, where joint action stabilised a rapidly deteriorating situation, and did so without bloodshed.

Who would speak at the inquiry? Let us remember that our actions at the time of Suez were bound to have been influenced by neighbours of Egypt who were fearful of our inaction and who were well aware of the dangers involved —friends of ours who cannot speak now because they do not live.

I put it to the House that on no grounds of logic, sense, usefulness or truth can the Motion be justified. I shall not descend to the level of the hon. and learned Member in his strictures upon the honour of Ministers because, in a matter of this kind, I am reminded of something which he evidently has forgotten, the wise advice of Edmund Burke:
Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom.

I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business): —

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 248.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[4.18 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Collick, Percy
Grey, Charles


Albu, Austen
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cronin, John
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Grimond, J.


Awbery, Stan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)


Bacon, Mist Alice
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hannan, William


Beaney, Alan
Deer, George
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dempsey, James
Hayman, F. H.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Diamond, John
Healey, Denis


Berm,Hn.A.Wedgwood(Brist'l, S.E.)
Dodds, Norman
Henderson Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)


Blackburn, F.
Donnelly, Desmond
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Blyton, William
Driberg, Tom
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Boardman, H.




Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Hilton, A. V.


Bowles, Frank
Edwards. Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holman, Percy


Braddock, E. M.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holt, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Evans, Albert
Houghton, Douglas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, Harold
Howell, Charles A.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Eric
Hoy, James H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Forman, J. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hunter, A. E.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Chetwynd, George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Cliffe, Michael
Gourlay, Harry
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas




Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Oliver, G. H.
Steele, Thomas


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Oram, A. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Will
Stonehouse, John


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Padley, W. E.
Stones, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swingler, Stephen


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Frederick
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Key, Bt. Hon. C. W.
Pentland, Norman
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Lawson, George
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thornton, Ernest


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, Ernest
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, R. E.
Wade, Donald


Loughlin, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin


McCann, John
Proctor, W. T.
Warbey, William


Mclnnes, James
Randall, Harry
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mackie, John
Redhead, E. C.
White, Mrs. Eirene


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reid, William
Whitlock, William


Mahon, Simon
Reynolds, G. W.
Wigg George


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Manuel, A. C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mapp, Charles
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon, H. A.
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Marsh, Richard
Short, Edward
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woof, Robert


Mendelson, J. J.
Skeffington, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Millan, Bruce
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)



Mitchison, G. R.
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Monslow, Walter
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Emrys Hughes and


Neal, Harold
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Mr. Dingle Foot.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Curran, Charles
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Allason, James
Dance, James
Hendry, Forbes


Alport, C. J. M.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Arbuthnot, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hirst, Geoffrey


Balniel, Lord
Donaldson, Cmdr. G. E. M.
Hobson, John


Barber, Anthony
Doughty, Charles
Hocking, Philip N.


Barlow, Sir John
Drayson, G. B.
Holland, Philip


Barter, John
Duncan, Sir James
Hollingworth, John


Batsford, Brian
Duthie, Sir William
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hopkins, Alan


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Eden, John
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Elliott, R. W.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. lves)


Berkeley, Humphry
Emery, Peter
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Biggs-Davison, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bingham, R. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Farr, John
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bishop, F. P.
Finlay, Graeme
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Bossom, Clive
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Forrest, George
Jackson, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
James, David



Fraser, lan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Brewis, John
Freeth, Denzil
Jennings, J. C.


Brooke, Rt. Hon, Henry




Brooman-White, R.
Gammans, Lady
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gardner, Edward
Johnson. Eric (Blackley)


Bryan, Paul
George, J.C. (Pollock)
Johnn smith, Geoffrey


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Goodhew, Victor
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Cary, Sir Robert
Gough, Frederick
Kershaw, Anthony


Channon, H.P.G.
Gower, Raymond
Kimball, Marcus


Chataway, christopher
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Kitson, Timothy


Chochester-Clark, R.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Lancaster, |Col. C. G.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Green, Alan
Leburn, Gilmour


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsrnth, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Cleaver, Leonard
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lilley, F.J.P.


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Weillngborough)
Litchffield, Capt. John


Cordle, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Loveys, Walter H.


Costain, A.P.
Harrison, Col. J.H. (Eye)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Coulson, J.M.




Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McAdden, Stephen


Craddock, Beresford (Speithorne)
Harvie, Anderson, Miss
MacArthur, lan


Crowder, F. P.
Hay, John
McLaren, Martin


Cunningham, Knox
Heath. Rt. Hon. Edward
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John







Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Teeling, William


McMaster, Stanley R.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Pott, Percivall
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maddan, Martin
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maginnis, John E.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Prior, J. M. L.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turner, Colin


Marshall, Douglas
Ramsden, James
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marten, Neil
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Rees, Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Mawby, Ray
Renton, David
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Rippon, Geoffrey
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Mills, Stratton
Roots, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Montgomery, Fergus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Morrison, John
Russell, Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene (Tyemouth)


Nabarro, Gerald
Scott-Hopkins, James
Watts, James


Neave, Airey
Seymour, Lesile
Webster, David


Nicholls Harmar
Shaw, M.



Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Wells, John (Maidstone)


Noble, Micheal
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, William


Nugent, Sir Richard
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Williams,Dudley (Exeter)


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wise, Alfred


Page, Graham
Speir, Rupert
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Page, A. J. (Harrow West)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Woollam, John


Partridge, E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stodart, J. A.



Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Peyton, John
Storey, Sir Samuel
Sir Gerald Wills and


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Sir Henry Srudholme.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tapsell, Peter

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.28 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to accept the Articles of Agreement of the proposed International Development Association. Its main provisions concern the payment of the United Kingdom's subscription to the Association, which will amount to nearly £47 million in convertible sterling over a period of years. The text of the Articles of Agreement was recently published in a White Paper (Cmnd. 965) and hon. Members will have noted that these articles have been approved for submission to Governments by the executive directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This connection between the International Bank and the new Association arises from the fact that the Bank is the parent organisation and the new Association is to be an affiliate of the Bank.
The need for the International Development Association is a matter about which I should like to speak first. It is not much more than a year since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Second Reading of a Bill to enable the United Kingdom to take part in an increase in the resources of the International Bank. Along with the United States, we were the first to effect our increased subscription on that occasion. Now, along with the United States, we are again in the forefront in the measures being taken to set up this new International Development Association.
I know that hon. Members, on both sides of the House, are conscious of the tremendous importance of the question of development assistance for the poorer countries of the world. It must have been said many times, but it is none the less true on that account, that this problem presents the West with one of the greatest challenges of our time. If the House will permit me a personal reflection. I would like to say that of all my

duties at the Treasury there is no aspect which I find more fascinating, or which gives me more satisfaction, than the help which we are giving to the hundreds of millions of men, women and children who live in the less-developed countries and territories of the world.
There is, I believe, general agreement that a substantial part of this development assistance should be channelled through multilateral associations. There are, however, two questions which obviously arise: first, why do we need a new Association; and, secondly, why should it be an affiliate of the International Bank?
A good deal of the explanation is embodied in the statement of the Association's purposes which is contained in the first of its articles, which appears on page 9 of the White Paper. The purposes are described as being
to promote economic development … in the less-developed areas of the world … in particular by providing finance … on terms which are more flexible and bear less heavily on the balance of payments than those of conventional loans, thereby furthering the developmental objectives of the International Bank … and supplementing its activities.
From time to time, there will inevitably be countries with sound and important development projects which they are unable to finance simply because of the weakness of their balance of payments. The projects may, for instance, hold out good prospects of being commercially profitable but the country in which they are situated may already have borrowed too much to make it eligible for further loans from overseas on normal terms. In such a case, the new Association will be empowered to lend on special terms. The terms may. for instance, include a long period of repayment or, perhaps, a period of grace before repayment has to commence, or even, in some cases, waiver of interest for an initial period.
The International Bank itself is not designed to meet the particular need to which I have referred. Indeed, it could not, in practice, operate in that way. Although it started its operations by using the subscriptions of member countries, the International Bank replenishes its funds by borrowing from the world's capital markets. The House will remember that only last December, for instance, it raised £10 million on the London market.
With the backing of the uncalled part of the subscriptions of the United States, the United Kingdom and the other countries, the Bank is able to borrow and to relend at rates more favourable than the less developed countries would normally be able to obtain. At the same time—this is very important to realise—loans financed in this way have to be repaid on terms and over periods enabling the Bank to meet its own obligations.
It would, nevertheless, be quite wrong to give the impression that, after all the important development which has so far been very successfully financed by the Bank, the scope for further Bank lending on its traditional terms, or its scope for bilateral lending on normal terms, has been suddenly exhausted. There are still many of the less developed countries whose situation and prospects will continue to make them perfectly creditworthy for further Bank loans, and whose needs for foreign development capital can still be met, either in whole or in part, from that source. It is a question not of replacing the existing operations of the Bank, but of supplementing them. It is, in the main, because of the activities of the International Development Association are to be complementary to those of the Bank that the Association is to be an affiliate of the Bank.
Indeed, there is a further and compelling reason why this is to be so, and that is it will result in a highly economical arrangement. Although the Association is to be a separate entity with separate funds, the Bank's governors, the executive directors and the President will discharge for the new Association functions similar to those which they perform for the Bank itself, and as far as possible one and the same staff will serve the two institutions.
Finally, there is the important matter of confidence. Here in the United Kingdom, as everywhere throughout the free world, great confidence is reposed in the existing management and staff of the International Bank. This has been a most important factor in securing support for the proposal to establish this further fund, because it is known in advance that it will be well used and that the Association will be a going concern from the outset.
The House will agree, I think, that this relationship between the new Association and the International Bank is an important one. Indeed, it has formed part of the concept of the new Association ever since it was first proposed in the United States Senate in 1958. I do not think that I need go into any great detail about the subsequent development of the proposal, but I think it right to remind the House that the original initiative came from the United States.
As soon as we in this country had an opportunity of considering the issues involved, we expressed our willingness to join in working out plans for an Association of this sort. The House will remember that in July last year my predecessor, now the Minister of State, Board of Trade, informed the House about this. Then, last September, a further important step was taken. At the annual meeting of the Bank, in Washington, the board of governors instructed the executive directors to prepare Articles of Agreement for submission to Governments, and the result is the Articles of Agreement contained in this White Paper.
The executive directors, under the chairmanship of the Bank's president, completed this work by 26th January this year. I am sure that the House will be with me when I say that they deserve our congratulations on this achievement, and on their success in reaching an accommodation of the various standpoints taken by the many countries involved. I hope that the House will allow me to say that anyone who has met Lord Cromer. the United Kingdom executive director, will not be surprised to know that he played a most notable part in all these discussions.
At any rate, we are satisfied that the resulting articles provide a good basis on which the Association will be able to start its work. There is a sufficient element of flexibility to enable sound operational policies to be evolved as the work of the Association proceeds. In particular, as I said a few minutes ago, the Association is given great flexibility as to the terms of its lending. It is also given greater scope than the International Bank as to the type of project it may finance. It will be able to lend for such purposes as housing schemes, water works, and sanitation, although it is


expected that the major part of its lending will be for economic development of a type at present being financed by the International Bank.
I should now like to turn to those provisions of the articles which govern the size of its resources and the subscriptions of individual countries. Membership will be open to all members of the International Bank. If all those are prepared to subscribe and to join, the Association's total initial resources will be 1,000 million dollars, the figure shown in Schedule A of the White Paper, although, as I shall explain, this does not mean that the whole of that amount is to be paid in at once.
At the end of the articles in Schedule A, to which I have referred, there is set out all the potential original members, and against each is set out what its initial subscription will be if it joins, expressed in terms of dollars. These subscriptions are roughly proportionate to the various countries' subscriptions to the International Bank, and, just as in the case of the Bank, voting rights in the Association will be roughly proportionate to subscriptions.
Out of the total of 1,000 million dollars, the United States is to make the largest subscription, 320 million dollars, and the United Kingdom the next largest, 131 million dollars, or nearly £47 million. All member countries, even the less developed, which may be recipients of aid are to make some contribution, and I hope that hon. Members will think that this is a good principle. It follows the example of the International Bank and it reflects the joint responsibility which all members, the more advanced and the less developed countries alike, will share in the work of the Association.
We do not want this requirement to bear heavily on the less developed countries themselves, who will have to join to be eligible for finance from the Association. We have taken account of this in two ways. In the first place, the International Bank's subscriptions on which subscriptions to this now Association are based are related to the economic position of each country. Secondly, the schedule of potential members is divided into two parts, as hon. Members will see from Schedule A.
Those in Part I are the industrialised or more advanced or better-placed countries. The other countries set out in Part II are in a different position, and the articles make different provisions for the payment of the subscription of the Part I countries and the Part II countries respectively As I say, those in Part II are broadly the less developed countries and, under Article II, pay only 10 per cent. of their initial subscription in gold or freely convertible currency. Half will be paid at the outset in the first year and the remainder by instalments over the next four years.
The rest of the subscription, the other 90 per cent., will be payable—I am still speaking of the less developed countries —in their national currencies which the Association will not be free either to convert into other currencies or to use to finance purchases of exports without the consent of the country concerned. I think that the House will agree that the burden imposed by subscriptions on the less developed countries will be relatively small unless and until their economic positions improve sufficiently to enable them to pay a greater proportion of subscriptions in convertible currencies. The Bank's executive directors have expressed the hope that those countries in Part II which have made more progress in their development will soon be able effectively to release some part of the 90 per cent. proportion of their subscriptions.
On the other hand, the industrialised countries, those included in Part I of Schedule A, are to pay the whole of their subscriptions in gold or freely convertible currencies. These subscriptions also are broken down into a 10 per cent. portion and a 90 per cent. portion. Each portion is payable by instalments over five years. The only effective difference between the two portions is that the first, the 10 per cent., is payable simply either in gold or convertible currency while the payment of the second may, in the first place, be made in the form of non-interest-bearing notes and cashable at par on demand by the new Association. The Association would cash these notes and take the proceeds in fully convertible form as and when it was entitled to do so and needed the funds for its operations. As hon. Members will know, this is an arrangement which has already


been adopted in the case of the International Bank.
Perhaps I can now say briefly how the United Kingdom subscription of about £47 million is to be paid. About £11 million of it will be payable in the first year and about £9 million in each of the following years. The whole of it will be made available in sterling which will be fully convertible, but, in practice, part of each year's payment may, in the first instance, take the form of the non-interest-bearing notes, cashable on demand, to which I have referred.
The articles also provide for a situation in which, after a country has paid its currency to the Association but before it has been used or converted by the Association, a change takes place in the exchange value of that currency either upwards or downwards. In that event, an additional amount of that currency would be due from the member country to the Association or, alternatively, from the Association to the member country in order to restore its original value in terms of dollars.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend say whether the rate of our subscription is roughly the rate which other contributors will pay? In other words, will there be an annual capital of about 200 million dollars a year?

Mr. Barber: The rate of exchange on which the calculation of approximately £47 million was based was made by reference, if my hon. Friend will look at the small note at the bottom of Schedule A—

Mr. Cooper: I do not think that my hon. Friend has grasped my point. He said that our contribution would be roughly £47 million payable over five years at a certain rate. I wanted to know whether the rate which we pay will be the rate at which other contributors will make their contribution.

Mr. Barber: Yes, certainly. All the countries in Part I, which are, generally speaking, industrialised countries and better-off countries, including the United States, France, Germany, Denmark, and Canada, will be making their payments at the same rate and on the basis at which we are making our payments.
I think that I was referring to the fact that in the event of a change in the par value of a currency this might mean either a payment from the Association to the country concerned or from the country concerned to the Association. However, we do not anticipate that we shall find ourselves in such a situation.
There are two other situations in which we might be entitled to receive money back from the Association. The first is this. There is a provision in the articles for a distribution of the Association's assets if it were to be wound up. Secondly, provision is made for disposal of the Association's net income, which could include a distribution to member countries.
All the points that I have mentioned affect the Clauses of the Bill, but I think that I ought to mention some situations envisaged by the Articles of Agreement for which quite deliberately no provision has been made in the Bill. First, the articles provide that the Association shall keep the adequacy of its resources under regular review. We expect that the first review will take place some time during the first five years of the Association's life. It is permissive for the governors to approve a general increase in subscriptions at any time, although no individual country could be obliged to take part in such a general increase.
In addition, an increase in the subscription of an individual country could be authorised at any time at that country's own request. The Government have taken the view that any question of an increase in the United Kingdom subscription should be a matter for further legislation. I hope that the House will agree that this is the right course.
The second matter which I should mention is this. The articles enable the Association to receive from any member country, in addition to its initial subscription, supplementary resources in the currency of another member provided the other member agrees. It makes it permissive for the Association, for example, to use with the agreement of the countries concerned rupee deposits to which the United States has title as a result of dollar aid provided to India in cash or in kind and repaid by India in her own currency. The United States is in a rather special position in this


respect, and, again, I should inform the House that we do not expect the United Kingdom to make any supplementary contribution of this kind.
I now turn to the Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 simply defines the Agreement and the Association. Clause 2 makes the necessary provision concerning the United Kingdom subscription, and I have already explained what is involved in this. I need, therefore, refer only briefly to the several subsections. Clause 2 (1) provides for the required payments to the Association. Subsection (2) provides for the raising of money for this purpose. Subsection (3) provides for the payment into the Exchequer of any sums which may be received from the Association in the sort of situation which I have already described, and subsection (4) provides for the creation and the issue to the Association of the non-interest-bearing notes about which I spoke earlier.
Clause 3 is concerned with matters to which I have not yet referred. The Clause enables the necessary steps to be taken to give effect in all territories in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction, other than the independent members of the Commonwealth, to Article VIII of the Articles of Agreement. That article prescribes the status, the privileges and the immunities which are to be enjoyed by the Association and its officers and staff.
I know that the House is always very watchful when it comes to granting privileges and immunities of this kind. I am, therefore, glad to be able to assure the House that the article in question follows exactly the corresponding provisions of the Bank's Articles of Agreement. Since the Association is to be an affiliate of the International Bank, and will be largely manned by the same officers and staff as the Bank itself, I think that the House will agree that it is obviously desirable that the Association should enjoy the same immunities and privileges and that the individuals concerned should enjoy the same treatment when acting in one capacity as when acting in another capacity.
When the Bill has been enacted, the provisions of the Agreement relating to immunities and privileges will be carried into effect by an Order in Council and

that Order will be an essential prerequisite to the acceptance by the United Kingdom of the Articles of Agreement. The House will note that in Clause 3 (4) it is laid down that any such Order is subject to approval, in other words, to an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. I hope that we shall be able to complete this process before the Summer Recess.
I should like to say a few words about the implementation of the Bill. The Articles of Agreement will come into effect when they have been accepted by the Governments subscribing in total not less than 65 per cent. of the total initial resources of 1,000 million dollars, but in any event not earlier than 15th September this year. It is hoped that the Association will be inaugurated between that date and the end of the year.
We know, and I know that there will be no dispute about this, that in these matters other countries watch the lead given by the United States and the United Kingdom. In particular, Commonwealth countries look to the lead given by the United Kingdom. After the Bill has gone through all its stages and the House has approved the Order in Council concerning privileges and immunities, the United Kingdom Government, in company with the other important subscribing Governments, will deposit the instrument of acceptance of the Agreement.
This country is now playing a considerably enlarged rô1e in providing assistance for overseas development. As the House will know from the White Paper published earlier this month, we are doing a great deal. On the other hand, we have to face the fact that our capacity to go further is inevitably limited. But this commitment to contribute to the International Development Association is one which we have foreseen for some time and I think that the House will agree that the Government are right to give priority to this Measure to supplement the existing operations of the International Bank and to increase the untied funds available for development. The idea behind the Association is an imaginative one and I hope that it will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: We are grateful to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the clear explanation he has given of the origin and purposes of the Bill and the details of its arrangements. Indeed, I am sure that he, like me, finds that we are very much more in agreement this Tuesday than we were last Tuesday.

Mr. John Diamond: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marquand: I particularly welcome, while thinking of last Tuesday, the assurance which the hon. Gentleman gave that if the Government need more money for this purpose they will ask the House for it. I am grateful also that he drew attention to the provision in the Bill which requires that if any Order in Council is made it shall be brought to the House for affirmative Resolution.
There is no disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and myself on the proposition that more aid, and aid on easier terms than hitherto, is required to tackle this problem of the underdeveloped areas of the world. During the last months we have been reminded again and again of the problems of Africa. We have been dealing with the emergence of African nationalism, with the desire of African people for self-government, and with topics of that kind.
This has reminded us very vividly of the acute problems which exist in the continent of Africa. But if all these problems are solved, if all the territories which wish to secure independence secure it, and if all successfully establish new constitutions and advance far on the road to self-government—if all these things are done—the economic problems will still remain. There will still be in Africa vast areas of land which should be cultivated but which will lack water and, therefore, cannot be cultivated. Where water is available it will still fall in terrific torrents at widely separated intervals so that much of it is quickly evaporated by the hot sunshine, and the rest of the water may rush across the land sweeping away the top soil and running the fertility of Africa down the rivers into the sea.
One experience of under-developed areas which I had and which I shall never forget was flying along the East coast of Africa about ten years ago and seeing how there lies between the coast and the deep purple waters of the Indian Ocean a band of land about five miles wide which is yellow in colour with the top soil of Africa, with the fertility that could have been producing food for the Africans. These problems still remain, though I know that the problem of soil erosion is not as great as it was ten years ago. The tsetse fly still remains unconquered king over wide areas of Africa rendering hundreds of thousands of acres of land uninhabitable. Endemic diseases and illiteracy still remain, and so does the lack of sufficient tools and equipment to cultivate even that soil which can be cultivated.
Not only in Africa do these things obtain, but in Asia. As we know, there are still thousands who have nowhere to sleep but the pavements; indeed nowhere to live at all but the pavements of great cities like Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. That, again, is one of the unforgettable sights of under-development.
We know that in Asia literally millions of persons go hungry every day, that all they have to consume by way of protein is less than half of what we customarily eat every day before we regard ourselves as fed. No magic could put this right and our best efforts often fail. It is only two months ago that I travelled down the Grand Trunk Road from Peshawar to Lahore. On both sides of that great road, as far as my eye could see, I saw nothing but one white sea of salt. All that land had been brought under irrigation, sometimes hundreds of years ago by means of canals, built first by the Mogul emperors and later by the British rulers. It had become the wheat bowl of Asia, the lunch-basket of the Indian Army for many years. Now it is waste because of the leakage of the irrigated waters through the canals which have reached down below and brought salt to the surface.
It would not be right to quote what the President of Pakistan said to me about this ghastly problem, but he is well aware of it and tremendously worried about it, wondering how it is possible, in a country which has only managed to draw level at the end of its first five-year plan with where it was


when it started that plan, to go further forward and conquer the problem of hunger which confronts it. Every day 200 acres of land are going out of cultivation in Pakistan due to salination alone.
So an enormous task has still to be carried out, and I do not believe that its size or nature is fully understood by our people. The White Paper Cmd. 974, has been issued by the Government in order to explain to our people what the British Government have so far done to deal with the problem of world poverty. We see in Table I on page 6 an account of the growth of United Kingdom Government assistance. It shows that in the year 1951–52, which incidentally was the last year of the Labour Government, £61 million were provided by way of United Kingdom Government assistance, mainly to the under-developed areas of the British Commonwealth. It shows that by 1952–53 this assistance had fallen to £49 million. Then it crept up to £52 million, then to £77 million, and to £83 million by 1955–56. However, in 1956–57 the assistance was down again to £76 million and up only to £81 million in 1957–58—still behind the level achieved in 1955–56.
In the last two years this assistance has mounted somewhat above those levels, to £110 million and £138 million. Allowing for the change in the value of money which has indisputably taken place between those various dates, we can see that the overall increase in the real aid provided has been very small. Perhaps the most outstanding feature revealed by a study of the Table is the fluctuation in the volume of aid which takes place.
When we consider the problem of investment, which is the main business before us this afternoon, we must remember that another problem exists, that of fluctuation in the terms of trade between ourselves and the underdeveloped countries. I believe that this is the most serious problem of all. If we could only eliminate those fluctuations, or greatly reduce the size of the fluctuations in the terms of trade, by stabilising the prices of the primary products produced in the under-developed areas, we should be able to give more real aid by investment all the time, and the underdeveloped areas would not be periodically subjected to a severe balance of pay-

ments problem or even a national income problem arising from fluctuations in the prices of their primary products.
I spoke about this at some length in one of our debates on this subject not long ago. I pointed to the difficulties which Kenya was then undergoing, when the whole of her economic plans—which had been made very skilfully by well-qualified, well-informed people, and with aid from this country by the experts available in the Colonial Office—for reducing illiteracy, for improving health and for generally developing agriculture had to be cut, simply because the price of coffee, the price of sisal, the price of pyrethrum, the prices of her exports, had fallen so catastrophically that the size of her national income was seriously reduced.
I regard it as the most urgent need of the under-developed areas of the world to get, if possible, stabilisation in prices and trade with the developed parts of the world on fair terms. However, I will say no more about it now, because we are principally concerned this afternoon with investment, although it undoubtedly affects investment. These alternate reductions and expansions in British aid arise directly from the fluctuations in the terms of trade which, as everybody knows, affects our own balance of payments. When we look at Table II on page 7 of the White Paper and read it in association with the qualifications set out in the second part of paragraph 9, we see that direct bilateral assistance to the under-developed countries is unlikely in the current year to be much more than £100 million, or about one-half of 1 per cent. of our national income.
Of course, I appreciate that much of the other contributions which are left outside this calculation—our subscriptions to organisations such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development—come back to the Commonwealth. Nor do I want to ignore altogether the contribution made by private investment. Yet, even making allowances for some amount of private investment which may be of directly productive effect in raising the standard of living of the peoples of the underdeveloped areas, and taking account of sterling contributions to the International Bank, which may have come back and are not included in that Table, it must


remain clear that the total aid is still well within our reach and is not involving any severe sacrifice by our people.
A contribution which, at best, may be only a fraction above 1 per cent. of our national income is not one which we can regard with complacency. Certainly we cannot take refuge in complacency about the volume of our private investment. In calculating how much we can afford, in discussing and arguing how far we are making a sacrifice to help the poverty stricken nations of the. world, we have no right to take into account a large part of that private investment. Much of it is in oil mining, gold mining and diamond mining, and much of it goes to already prosperous nations, like Australia and Canada.
Of course, I do not object to that in principle, nor am I suggesting that private investment in Australia and Canada should cease. What we are considering today is aid to the under-developed countries, and in regard to that matter I say, for heaven's sake let us get our priorities right. Let us not exaggerate the value of that sort of contribution towards helping the under-developed countries to do the things they need to do. Do not let us exaggerate or over-assess the value of private investment in that contribution.
The Government White Paper of 1957 said:
Her Majesty's Government consider that it is through the investment of privately-owned funds in the Commonwealth that the United Kingdom has made in the past and should continue to make its most valuable contribution to Commonwealth economic development.
That is nonsense. Certainly on this side of the House we do not regard the value of that contribution—though we have no objection to it, as I have been careful to make clear—as having been very substantial in helping to tackle the kind of problems I have described when I referred to Africa and Asia. From what we have heard today, I am hopeful that the Government have abandoned that declaration of policy. It would mean that directors of private companies would be the judges of the nature and location of the very scarce surpluses which we are able to make available for investment overseas, and that a yardstick of money profit would determine priorities. It should not do so.
If £1 million were invested in building hotels and flats in South Africa, or a

departmental store in Sydney, and that investment was calculated to yield an annual dividend of £100,000, whereas the same £1 million invested in a miniature Gezira scheme in Uganda, Kenya or Tanganyika, giving employment to thousands of African cultivators and helping them, by their own efforts, to raise their standard of living, would yield only £10,000 in profits, then under the yardstick of private enterprise it would be the departmental store or the flats and hotels that would be built.
We need a different scale of priorities, a different measure of advantage than that which—and I do not necessarily complain about this—is inevitably used by private enterprise in making its judgments. Though there is still room for private enterprise, we should make a grave mistake if we were to concur in this theory put forward in the White Paper that it must still be our main contribution. It cannot be and should not be. This Bill is an advance in the right direction. It is getting away from that philosophy. It is providing more Government aid through the right sort of agency, an agency which will not be required to take this sort of judgment, this narrow profit-making judgment.
The first of the three major merits of the proposition before us is that it increases the total of our aid. We want that total to be increased. We regard it as still inadequate. Though I know that we have done better than some other nations, we still have not done as well as we could. Secondly, it is to operate through a United Nations institution, with 69 nations participating. We welcome that. We have said for a long time that we think that aid should, as far as possible, be channelled through United Nations Agencies. Thirdly, this proposition recognises the need for investment in the sort of projects which cannot yield immediate dividends in cash but which will stimulate that self-generating investment within under-developed countries which, in the long run, will enable them to become independent of outside aid.
This Bill is designed to provide some of what we call the infrastructure of development—housing, schools, hospitals, minor roads—the minor but essential projects of community development. Our development overseas began centuries ago, particularly 150 years ago.


with investment in profit-yielding mines and plantations. The theory was that this would in time yield surpluses out of which the necessary social advance could be paid for. A somewhat similar idea inspired the creation of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development after the war.
Experience has shown in both cases that that idea was unsound. It is unsound to say, "Let us have industry and expansion by those industries and eventually we shall find the sums we want in order to pay for hospitals, schools and roads in the under-developed territories." These two things have to go hand in hand. There must be a phased timetable worked out whereby the infrastructure and the superstructure of development come at a planned rate and at the same time.
Lord Reith, after some time in charge of our Colonial Development Corporation, came to this conclusion and said so in one of his Annual Reports. Mr. Eugene Black, of the International Bank, said the same thing—I believe it was in his Report of 1953. He found—as did Lord Reith—that the task with which they were charged, of carrying out development by the method of economic loans which had to pay their way and to yield not only a rate of interest but eventually the repayment of the capital, gave them insufficient scope for experiment, and in any case came to a dead end after a time because the infrastructure of development was not ready to support and sustain major projects which they were able to finance. That is what they both said.
In passing, one would like to pay tribute both to Lord Reith for his conduct of the C.D.C. and to Mr. Black for the vigour, energy and great skill he has shown in the discharge of his extremely important task. We all know what he has done towards the solution of the problem of the Indus waters and also towards the solution of Egypt's economic problems. They are the outstanding things he has done as Chairman of the Bank. He has also been called in again and again as mediator between nations —between India and Pakistan, for instance.
The actual conduct of the Bank has been exemplary, and its success within its

terms of reference has been admirable. Whatever we say today about the need for other kinds and forms of investment is no reflection on the Bank. It is a pity that the recommendations and conclusions come to by Lord Reith and Mr. Black, that there must be a big expansion in the provision of infrastructure in development, were not listened to earlier. This is what Mr. Paul Hoffman recently said about that:
There is no doubt that the high income countries and the world economy in general would be a lot further ahead today if a greater emphasis had been put on pre-investtnent activities during the 1950's.
There has been neglect. The call of Lord Reith went unheeded. Insufficient attention was paid to the statements of Mr. Black. It is a great pity that the Government did not advance earlier this argument at the United Nations, instead of producing a White Paper with its completely trite ideological statement about the advantages of private enterprise, which had already been proved to be quite insufficient for this job. It is also a pity that the Foreign Secretary adhered so closely and for so long to his argument that nothing adequate, nothing on a sufficiently large scale, could be done until disarmament had been achieved.
Mr. Hoffman is no starry-eyed idealist; he is an American tycoon—a man who started from comparatively lowly circumstances and made himself into a powerful industrialist. Yet it is he who has suggested to the world a vast expansion of help to the under-developed countries. It is he who has calculated that for the next ten years we should have as our goal the aim of increasing the income per head by 2 per cent. a year in 100 countries. Allowing for the population increases which continually take place in those countries, this means an average increase in their total national incomes of between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. a year.
Just now I referred to Pakistan and said that at the end of its first five-year plan it had done no more than remain where it started. It had maintained its average annual income, but no more. It is now setting up a new five-year plan, at the end of which it hopes to raise its national income by 10 per cent.—by about 2 per cent. a year. To do that—and this is a startling measure of the job which we have to approve—Pakistan will


need £90 million of foreign aid each year in order to fill its investment gap.
Are these goals too ambitious? Is Mr. Hoffman's recommendation, that in ten years we should strive to increase the average per capita income by 2 per cent. a year, too ambitious? Pakistan has adopted exactly the same goal. Is that too ambitious? Mr. Hoffman has told us that in those 100 countries it would mean a per capita increase from 125 dollars to 160 dollars a year in their average national income. If this great, imaginative plan of Mr. Hoffman's were seized upon by the whole world, and if every rich nation dedicated itself to the task, at the end of a successful ten-year plan the average per capita national income in those countries would still be only £57 a year. In this country it is about £350 a year. That is a measure of the difference between those countries and ourselves.
Mr. Hoffman calculated that to do all this would need an investment of 55 billion dollars, of which 35 billion could be "bankable" and from 15 to 20 billion "non-bankable." By "bankable" investment he means the kind of investment which can be carried out by the Bank itself, under its present charter, and by "non-bankable" he means the kind which could be carried out by the Bank's new affiliate, the I.D.A., which we are seeking to endorse this afternoon.
Yet although Mr. Hoffman has estimated that between 15 billion and 20 billion dollars is required over the next ten years, the I.D.A. is to start out with only 1 billion dollars. No wonder Mr. Hoffman said that its capital should be much larger. We are in agreement with the proposal contained in the Bill, but we believe that the capital should be much larger. We believe that it would be possible to make it larger and that we could considerably increase the United Kingdom contribution, provided other countries did the same, without hurting our own people.
We had hoped that there might be established one world development authority for this whole stupendous task —doing for the whole world what our Colonial Development Corporation and CD. and W. funds have sought to do for the Commonwealth. We argued for this in a debate which took place almost exactly six years ago. I have looked up the

reports of the speeches made in March, 1954. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept our view that there should be a world development authority. They refused to accept in total the proposals made at the United Nations for the establishment of S.U.N.F.E.D.—the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development. They dragged their feet. The result is that at last, six years after the S.U.N.F.E.D. proposal was first put forward at the United Nations, we are to have three agencies at work in this field.
I know that there are dozens of other agencies—I wish there were not—such as the Development Loan Fund of the United Nations and I.C.A. It is not necessary for me to enumerate them all. I sometimes wonder whether they do not lead to an unnecessary overlapping and demand for the scarce labour of skilled planners and economists.
But there it is; we are now concentrating upon the consideration of three agencies—the Bank itself, the I.D.A., and what remains of the S.U.N.F.E.D. project —the United Nations Special Fund. As far as I am aware, there is no rivalry between them. In a speech made in New York not long ago Mr. Hoffman welcomed the establishement of the I.D.A., and I have already quoted his statement that he thought its capital insufficient. He welcomed its esitablishment, and so do I. I hope that people like Mr. Eugene Black and Mr. Hoffman, who have both done so much, can work together. I believe they will, and I think they intend to. I have paid tribute to Mr. Black, and I now pay tribute to Mr. Hoffman, as the first administrator of Marshall Aid, a magnificently successful work, to which we owe a great deal.
Above all, I hope that Mr. Hoffman can convince the world that the proposed I.D.A. fund is not large enough, and that the Government will ask us for more money before five years have passed. I hope that Mr. Hoffman can also convince the world that the Special Fund itself is inadequate for its great task of pre-investment surveys, research, training and expanded technical assistance.
I know that Mr. Hoffman thinks the money is insufficient, because he has said BO. He has said that both the I.D.A. and the Special Fund moneys are insufficient. But these projects will start, and I wish them well. I hope that their


success in the early years will prove that they could effectively be expanded without waste of money. We could then envisage a three-pronged attack upon the problem—an attack by the Bank, with its hard loans, the I.D.A., with its soft loans, and the Special Fund, with its pre-investment preparations by way of surveys, training, pilot schemes and the rest.
But there is still a gap. When we have passed the pre-investment stage; when the surveys of natural resources have been made and the planning techniques and levels of science existing in underdeveloped countries are known; when we have conducted new pilot projects and endorsed certain schemes as reasonable ones to go ahead with, we may still find that there is a need for something more. I believe that we shall.
I believe that we shall find the funds of the I.D.A., soft loans though they will be, loans on easy terms, loans with possible postponement of interest, and loans perhaps with no interest at all, will not be enough to provide the necessary infrastructure for rapid development in tilling and preparing the ground so that it can support large undertakings with which the Bank itself has been so prominently concerned. For things like the Owen Falls and the Kariba Dam, which require considerable preparation, we need an infrastructure which I think we shall find in the end can be made not by loans of any kind but by outright gifts.
We have to look forward to the necessity for having in the international world not only the equivalent of the C.D.C. which we have in our Commonwealth, but a CD. and W. as well. It is because we envisage the necessity for this that we say there ought to be a world development authority. I should like to see the Special Fund given more money and encouraged to enter the CD. and W. sphere. How, for example, could we have provided university colleges in the West Indies and in Uganda and the Rhodesia and Nyasaland college if we had not given the money for building them? We could not have carried out those projects by loans. Both Conservative and Labour Governments provided the money. It will be impossible to expand the new university college in the West Indies, as the Cato Committee has recommended, unless we

give the money. We recognise and practise the principles of giving money inside the Commonwealth. We must urge on the outside world the principles which we accept.
I hope that when the Prime Minister goes to the Summit Conference he will ask his fellow members who represent all the mighty nations of the world to give half a day, or a couple of hours, to consider the problem, to consider the possibility of accelerating what is now to be provided by the various agencies, and to agree on the need for all nations in the world to join together irrespective of ideology.
Why not propose that every nation undertakes to contribute a fixed proportion of its present armament budget to this purpose? Is it impossible to think of this being agreed at the Summit? There would be no need for a lot of technical arguments about whether one could detect underground tests or things of that kind. One would have to recognise only that the need existed, that the skills and techniques to do the job existed in Russia as well as in China, the United States of America, and Great Britain. If such a contribution were made proportionate to the arms budget, it would in itself be an act of disarmament, because the resources which were devoted in this way to the world war on want would be taken away and not be available for the preparation of weapons of mass destruction, or for waging war.
Such an act would be one of disarmament in itself, and it would enable us to go forward faster and more practically in the war against want. It would be a war which would redound to the advantage of everyone who took part in it, the only kind of war that can benefit everyone who takes part, for prosperity, like peace, is indivisible.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: Like the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), I commend the Bill to the House. I find myself largely in agreement with what he said. I too have flown over the East coast of South Africa, over Natal and elsewhere, and seen the rivers churning good soil into the Indian Ocean. The right hon. Gentleman may have flown over parts of the Enugu Hills in the


Eastern Region of Nigeria and seen soil erosion there, too.
I often wonder whether the prophets of the dangers of over-population throughout the world are right when one sees vast areas in parts of Malaya, or places in Africa like Mokwa in Nigeria, and Gonja in the Gold Coast, as it used to be, where admittedly a lot of money has been lost, but which have shown that certain territories can produce good crops if the labour is available and the soil is properly cultivated. If mankind could find a solution to changing salt water into fresh, what immense hope there would be for a vast area of Africa.
The right hon. Gentleman and I have a mutual friend, the Premier of the Northern Region of Nigeria, who wrote to me not long ago. He was worried about what was to happen in that country which was about to become the most important purely black African state in the Commonwealth, and which has a national average income of only £22 per annum, and in the North an average income of only £18. What will that country do when C.D.C. and CD. and W. come to an end?
There is much that we can do and, indeed, are doing to help. I thought that when the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the aid which we had given he was a little ungenerous. If he refers to Command 974, he will see that with private enterprise, which he rather decries, £2,500 million, or 1¼ per cent. of our national income, has been sent to less developed countries since the end of the war.
I failed to follow him when he spoke about hotels. There is as much a need for hotels in places like West Africa as there is in Australia. I went to West Africa with one of the right hon. Gentleman's friends, Mr. Iain Winterbottom, when he was a Member of this House. On our return we suggested that there was a need for hotels in the Gold Coast, as it was then, in Sierra Leone, and elsewhere. I am glad to see that some of those suggestions have now been put into effect, oddly enough by private enterprise.

Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not a question of black and white? It is a question of priorities. An hotel in the British

Honduras might do a lot of good by bringing in the tourist trade and adding to the income of that under-developed country, or in similar countries which he mentioned, but it is not much use using scarce resources to build hotels in already fully developed countries.

Mr. Tilney: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that one will not get industry to go into partnership with these under-developed countries unless one provides an occasional hotel. Many of these under-developed countries want cement industries, textile mills and iron and steel mills. They want to play their part in the industrial world, but it is impossible for them to do so unless they have some of the amenities of so-called Western civilisation.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was a little ungenerous to private enterprise when he spoke about the need for Gezira schemes, suggesting that the Gezira scheme was originally a State scheme. It was produced by the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, though admittedly it was later taken over by the Sudan Government. Private enterprise plantations have made Malaya more prosperous than any other country in Asia. Who produced the plantations? Even in the Cameroons it was German private enterprise which did it, and not the State. The State has made many mistakes in undertaking the plantations and other undertakings in Africa since the war, of which we are all aware. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if only we could produce a balance in the rise and fall of commodity prices the world over it would probably help more than anything else. I therefore commend the Grondona scheme to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. By itself this country cannot possibly tackle that scheme, but it might well be looked at by a body like the new I.D.A. I hope that it will be passed on to the I.D.A. and the World Bank.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome this Bill, which, following the doubling of the World Bank capital, has produced a much broader economic infrastructure on which we can build increasing prosperity, and, I believe, increasing world trade. There is nothing wrong in doing the right thing and also gaining from it. It is a British interest that world trade should expand to the


full. I wish to pay my tribute to one of the creators of the I.D.A., an American, Senator Monroney, whom I met at the Warsaw Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union only last year. It was largely his efforts in his own country which brought the I.D.A. into action.
No doubt the late Lord Keynes, were he alive today, would believe that we were doing the right thing in providing this money, though, like the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, he might well think that it was not enough. Of course, it is only a very small step towards solving our world problems. We have now what is called an affluent society, but we are apt to forget that the investments of so-called affluent countries—including those on the other side of the Iron Curtain—into underdeveloped countries is only about 5½ billion, or possibly 6 billion dollars per annum. I think that was the figure arrived at by the Committee, sitting under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), which produced the document "A World Investment Convention".
Were that to be trebled, all that would happen would be that the so-called underdeveloped countries would double their standards of living by 1970. They would not go very far and not until the end of the century would they attain anything like the standard of living enjoyed by this country today. One forgets that about 5,400 babies are born every hour, just to add to the problem. Yet this contribution, 1 billion dollars over five years, is a start. It is a start towards the goal of 2·3 per cent. of the national income of the West which might achieve the doubling of the standard of living in about fifteen years. How little is 2·3 per cent. of the national income compared with the 8 per cent. which is spent on armaments today. So I agree strongly with the right hon. Gentleman that there is great scope if only the nations of the world could forget their jealousies and get down to improving their own standards of living as well as the standards of living of their neighbours.
Yet it represents a great step forward and is in line with the election pledges of the Conservative Party. I think it well to remember that 131 million dollars is

not a small sum. We are providing 8 per cent. of the new capital of this Association. I particularly welcome paragraph 13 of the Association's Articles of Agreement, which states:
Under this provision, the Association's financing is to be for less-developed member countries and less-developed dependent and associated territories included within the membership of member countries.
That means that not only the emerged, but the emerging territories of the Commonwealth may be helped. They have many difficulties because, as we know, they are to lose the Colonial Development Welfare Fund and the help of the Colonial Development Corporation in a large measure. They are told that they have to show themselves to be credit-worthy. It is not all that easy for a country to show in a year or two that it is credit-worthy. It takes many decades for a country to secure that reputation in the eyes of the capitalists of the world, although Mr. Gbedemah, in Ghana, and Chief Festus, in Nigeria, have gone a long way to show that they are following sound financial principles and have indeed a very good record.
But the average owner of capital is extremely ignorant of conditions in Ghana and Nigeria, and events elsewhere have not been helpful. Anything that happens in Africa or Asia which disturbs the body politic does not help investment by private enterprise in the under-developed countries. I cannot believe that if Sierre Leone came into the market at the same time, say, as Australia, many people would invest in Sierre Leone rather than in Australia. Because of that I welcome the recent decision to allow Government-to Government loans. Probably that is the only way in which territories like Sierro Leone can be helped.
I also welcome the elasticity of paragraph 14 of the Articles of Agreement, which says:
For example, the Association is authorised to finance any project which is of high developmental priority, that is, which will make an important contribution to the development of the area or areas concerned, whether or not the project is revenue-producing or directly productive".
That must have been looked at by the directors of the Colonial Development Corporation with some envy. Even though the C.D.C. has been so much improved of recent years. I think it must


hope that the Sinclair Report will soon be implemented.
I am hoping that the I.D.A. will be able to help these emerging and emerged territories. I am thinking particularly of great projects like the dam across the Niger River and across the Kaduna River which not only will make it possible to navigate the great Niger River, but will also produce cheap power and quite a lot of irrigation. I hope that the Ghana Government and private enterprise may, at long last, be able to help the Volta Scheme, about which so much has been said and on the whole so little done. I am hoping that the I.D.A. will help other territories which are still a long way from independence.
I am thinking particularly of Kenya. In Kenya, we have to finance education if the African is to establish himself as a really big revenue earner. Kenya is a very poor country. To pay for education and its development it must expand its agricultural production. Much of its land is not fully used, and it should be profitably used. If the Africans are settled on it, it is no good putting them on land unless they are to produce profitably and the right crops. To do so they must have enough capital and the former owners of that property must be properly compensated.
I hope that some form of land bank or fund can be supported by a body such as I.D.A. in Kenya, thereby not only stopping the possible flood of capital from Kenya, but bringing outside capital back into Kenya. I believe that the I.D.A. has a great chance in this field. There is great merit in this these un-colonial days in having a international rather than a national body. An international body helps both sides. An ex-colonial territory will object far less to taking funds from an international body than from one which could be considered still to be imperialist. It would have no qualms about international aid.
From the other side, it is possibly easier to turn down a project by an international body than by a national one if by any chance the economic arguments are strongly against it. I hope, too, that we can let the countries which are to benefit from I.D.A. know that we are contributing in large measure to I.D.A. My experience in many parts of the

world has been that very few people among the rank and file know of the great help that has been given by these national and international funds.
I turn to the private enterprise part of the help which I believe could be given. I am doubtful whether Government-to-Government loans are always the right means of giving aid. It is so much easier for a country to default on a Government loan than it is to take action against private enterprise. There is a political risk and capital is a very shy animal. If the political risk is to be exorcised something must be done and I believe that it could be done by Her Majesty's Government. I must declare an interest, being a director of a firm which trades throughout West Africa.
I wish to quote from a letter I received only this morning about insurance against strikes, riots and civil commotions. One paragraph said:
The main trouble is that the present policies exclude the risk of any loss or damage arising out of the act of any person acting for or on behalf of or in connection with any organisation with activities directed towards the overthrow by force of the Government or to the influencing of it by terrorism or violence.
It is very easy in, say, the Cameroons to find some excuse for some damage there and that it should be political.
If that is the case over ordinary trading, how much more so must it be over capital investment? I regret very much what the Government of Ghana did about freezing the French assets in that territory. I hold no brief at all for the French Government and what they did in exploding a bomb in the Sahara. As The Times pointed out many months ago, there was a perfectly good French island, uninhabited, in the Antarctic Ocean where the experiment could have been carried out. The effect, however, not only on Ghana, but on other territories in Africa, of freezing the assets of the French companies must be very considerable and I regret greatly the damage to her credit.
It is as well to remember that capital today is not merely of the rich. What is capital? It is what we save out of current earnings. It is held by trade union funds, by widows and orphans, pensions schemes and great insurance companies. If that capital is to be invested in under-developed countries


rather than in this country, the United States or other well-developed countries, those who receive that capital must be very careful not to damage their credit. The Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Wakefield has put forward a suggestion for a world investment convention. I hope that a leading Commonwealth statesman like Mr. Awolowo or Sir Abubakar Tafewa Balewa could lead the Commonwealth in acknowledging that convention.
I wish to quote the comments on it by the ambassador-at-large of the World Bank, the Bank's Special Representative in Europe, Mr. J. D. Miller, who said, after he had read it:
This seems to me to be a sensible and balanced document and one that gives sufficient weight to the fears of the borrowers. It seems to me that the real task now for those interested in seeing some kind of Code accepted is to do a lot of missionary work among the underdeveloped countries. If … the Commonwealth as a whole (developed and underdeveloped) could be persuaded to accept something it would have a great effect on the rest of the world.
At the Annual Conference in Warsaw of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, last autumn, a resolution was passed saying that
the economically underdeveloped countries and the more developed ones should be prepared to negotiate a World Investment Code in order to create greater confidence conducive to investment on the basis that both investors and recipients, whether they represent Government finance or private enterprise, will benefit from their rights and obligations being mutually assured.
If the investment climate could be improved in that way for private enterprise, private enterprise could raise much more capital than it is doing at present and either more development be assured or less money provided by the taxpayer.
I wish to commend to the House the scheme of the United States of America, and now of Western Germany for guaranteeing private investment in under-developed countries against either non-convertibility of profits or of expropriation. As the House will know, the American Government have treaty obligations with a great many countries, including the United Kingdom. Since the start of the scheme, 448 million dollars, up to the middle of 1959, has been invested. The rate is ½ per cent. premium per annum against non-conver-

tibility and ½ per cent. per annum against expropriation. The cost is remarkably little.
I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister of State a very good booklet produced by the Princeton Studies in International Finance. He will see from page 70 that so far 3½ million dollars have been paid in premiums, there have been no losses and the expenses have amounted, in all, to 142,000 dollars.
If some such scheme could be introduced for the Commonwealth, much private capital might flow in the direction in which we would like to see it, provided that this new investment was made on a partnershp basis. In all these territories with new industries it is so much better to be in partnership fifty-fifty, or fifty-one-forty-nine, or even more for the particular African or Asian country, than for that industry to be solely owned by a company overseas.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State may say that it is better that the new emerged territories should show credit-worthiness, but that takes many years. I have heard it said, also, that overseas Governments, once the scheme was introduced, would be less responsible than they are at the moment. Is the United Kingdom less responsible because we have entered into treaty relationship with America and, incidentally, have benefited by the investment of 49 million dollars in this country against non-convertibility?
It may be said, also, that we cannot guarantee all the risks; we cannot insure against Asianisation or Africanisation. No insurance company says to a person wanting to insure, "We would not advise you to insure against burglary or fire, because we cannot insure you against an act of God." It is much better to leave private enterprise to make use of an insurance scheme or not as the case may be, but we must have an insurance scheme of that kind if private enterprise is to invest in many of these underdeveloped countries.
I hope that the underdeveloped countries themselves will be prepared to pay a portion of the premiums so that, as each year is succeeded by the next, so the fund will grow, and the amount of money that an underdeveloped country has in the fund will grow, too. Then, if anything goes wrong, that country will


lose not only its good will but much of its own money. I therefore commend it once again to the Minister of State.
This is a great start to a development which we have all wanted to see—an economic development which can bring political results as well, as in the case of the Indus waters, as has been already mentioned. The scheme has great possibilities in territories such as Kenya. It is a most imaginative scheme, and I have no doubt that it is not lost on the uncommitted countries that no one behind the Iron Curtain is participating in it.
Finally, whether the taxpayers' money will be lost or frozen, as it may be in a small number of cases, the bulk of the money will, I believe, produce a dividend of good will for our so-called Western civilisation which will exceed our wilder hopes.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. A. Gram: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) said so many things with which I agree that, on reflection, I am glad that I did not interrupt him during his rather provocative opening remarks when he was, I thought, rather less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). If I understood aright what my right hon. Friend was saying about hotels, he was criticising the possibility of private investment erecting hotels in places like Sydney, and not so much the erecting of hotels in under-developed territories.
The hon. Gentleman laid much more emphasis in his concluding remarks than I do on the part which private enterprise can play in under-developed countries by comparison with Government-to-Government grants, but nevertheless I felt that his speech in that respect was most interesting and that he put forward quite a number of points containing considerable common sense. His speech emphasised, as I have no doubt that all speeches on both sides will emphasise, the importance of finding ways and means of getting vastly increased amounts of aid from the West to Africa and South-East Asia, and I feel sure that we are agreed on all sides, with perhaps different degrees of warmth, about the value of the instrument which we are endorsing this afternoon.
Although, amongst the present company in the House we may all be very

convinced about the importance of this subject, we must admit that it is not yet a subject which has caught the imagination of the public mind. A great deal has to be done not only in devising the right policies and the right instruments, as I hope that we are doing this afternoon, but also in making a much more vivid impact upon the public mind about the importance and extent of world poverty and how to overcome it. If something dramatic happens, if a typhoon hits Mauritius or an earthquake hits Agadir, quite swiftly and quite rightly the conscience of the world is roused; but the vastly greater disaster of continuing world poverty goes on year after year. People's minds are not so much in touch with the problem and are not so closely brought to realise it. I think that we in the House and public people everywhere have a duty to try to bring home to the public the tremendous importance of this subject.
The difficulty is that world poverty is not local, but is widespread. It is not sudden, but is enduring. It is not dramatic; it does not catch the imagination instantly, but is relentlessly humdrum. Because it has those features, it does not receive the attention it deserves. Unless one has had personal experience of these things, as previous speakers obviously have in their travels, it is not easy to get the vivid picture which one needs to get before one has the right thoughts on these subjects. Since I have recently had the opportunity of some direct experience, in that I was a member of a Parliamentary delegation to South-East Asia in the autumn, I want to use that experience and bring it to bear on this afternoon's discussion. In particular, I want to bring it to bear upon the very point which the hon. Member for Wavertree made on paragraph 14 of the White Paper which talks about the intention of the Association to finance projects,
whether or not the project is revenue-producing or directly productive.
I remember from my visit with three other hon. Members to the island of Borneo that there were within that territory two vividly contrasting communities. One, in Sarawak, was a very primitive community living the long-house life; the other, on the coast, was a sophisticated, highly-developed community on the oilfield at Seria. They


were within a comparatively short distance of one another.
The one, living in a stage of development comparable, I suppose, with that of the ancient Britons, had attracted no investment from the West, while the other, because there was oil under the ground, had obviously attracted quite adequate investment. There, within the same island, were two groups of human beings, the one living mean and poverty-stricken lives and the other living life at material standards that obviously bore comparison with anything in the Western world.
It is a contrast of that kind that poses a problem with which one hopes the International Development Association will in a large measure deal. Where there are resources like oil or copper, or some raw material that is needed by western civilisation, there has been no difficulty in getting the requisite investment. Where a disaster has occurred, there has been no difficulty either, because human beings are not ungenerous when their fellows suffer. The problem that we are trying to tackle by this instrument lies in the vast territory in between—the vast stretches of the earth's surface that are not very rich, but are not deserts.
There are many millions of people there who are not suddenly dying in some disaster but who, because of their poverty, are due to die all too early. I saw such areas in my visit to South-East Asia, and others will have seen them elsewhere. They are not profit-making areas. Their resources are not likely easily to produce profit; yet, in those areas, human beings are living unsatisfactory lives.
If their lives are to be made more satisfactory, they need roads, houses, sanitation, simple tools, organisation, and simple instruction in the ways of more modern life. Whatever is done in those ways, it is highly unlikely that those territories—because there is no mineral wealth—will be profitable in a monetary sense. They will certainly not be profitable in the sense of the 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. interest that the World Bank charges on its loans.
It is not only that certain territories are unsuited for development by the

loans which the World Bank provides. There are certain kinds of enterprise, not just social institutions like universities and hospitals but certain kinds of commercial enterprise, that are very necessary and desirable in certain under-developed areas but which are not suitable for the type of loan provided under World Bank auspices as we have known them hitherto.
All four members of the delegation— two from the Government side and two from this—were agreed that the rubber planting in Sarawak was very inefficient and ill-organised. We were all agreed that co-operative rubber factories were at least an important part of the solution for the reorganisation of rubber growing there. An organisation such as a co-operative society would need capital, but it would certainly not be able to pay the 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. required by the World Bank.
When I say that there are certain kinds of institutions that are not in themselves suitable for finance by orthodox methods, I would point out that one of the most important principles of cooperation is a limitation on return on capital. Therefore, loans made at comparatively high interest rates are unsuitable for the encouragement of that sort of enterprise.
Hon. Members will know that these points have often been raised within the United Nations by the delegates from the under-developed countries themselves. They have pointed out that the capital from the West goes, to a very large extent, into extractive industries, particularly the petroleum industry. They have pointed out, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East that so much private enterprise goes, not to underdeveloped countries but to developed and semi-developed countries.
If one examines the places to which the World Bank loans have gone—and particularly if we make comparisons on a per capita basis—while no one denies that the World Bank has done a valuable job in increasing liquidity of capital in an age when international capital has been far from liquid, we find that the capital has not been in proportion to the needs of the recipient countries. To a very large extent, it has gone to the wrong countries.
In this Bill, and particularly in the Articles of Agreement published in Comnd. 965, there are a number of features that I especially welcome. In particular, I welcome the first article, to which the hon. Member for Waver-tree called attention, by which it is proposed to make loans on much more lenient terms than have been possible under World Bank auspices. That has been one of the defects of the World Bank from the point of view of meeting the needs of under-developed countries, and I believe that this article will be one of the most valuable features of the new Association if it can make capital available at much more lenient rates of interest.
Again, Article V (f) says:
The Association shall impose no conditions that the proceeds of its financing shall be spent in the territories of any particular member or members
I welcome that flexibility. One hopes that there will be no tying of a certain amount of money to be spent in a certain direction. A few months ago, we read a report that the United States was to introduce such a condition in respect of its direct aid to other countries. I felt then that it was a retrograde step, and I hope that the British Government, in relation to its aid, will not enter into that sort of restriction. I am glad, so far as the International Development Association is concerned, that that is written into the articles.
Section 4 of Article V is important, because it states that this Association is to co-operate with other agencies interested in providing assistance for development. My right hon. Friend has been referring to the S.U.N.F.E.D. scheme, and there are other schemes which have been mentioned. It is highly important that in establishing this new instrument of international aid, it should not in any way be regarded as a rival to the S.U.F.E.D. scheme, or as a rival to any other scheme which has been set up, but should be an ally. By this means, we could, as my right hon. Friend said, make a three-pronged attack upon this problem of world poverty, and not let this development lead to any argument between one institution and another as to which is the better form of approach.
Section 6 is headed "Political Activity Prohibited." I hope that that means

what it says, and that it is not just a pious hope. I hope that it will be true that only economic considerations shall be relevant to the decisions of the officers concerned, because if we start trying to tie up these loans with political strings, it will, in my judgment, be a psychological and diplomatic disaster, and will largely undo the sort of good which we are hoping to do in the economic sense.
Those are the features of the proposed Association which I have particularly welcomed, but, in closing, I should like to call attention to two ways in which I wish it had been different—two ways in which I think it could have been strengthened. In the first place, the membership of the Association is confined to members of the Bank. Other speakers have pointed out that a virtue of this organisation, as of the World Bank, is that it will be linked with the United Nations. I, too, welcome that, but we have, I suggest, both in the constitution of the World Bank and, therefore, of this Association, a one-sided organisation. I am not here saying whose fault it is, but, in fact, the World Bank, and therefore this Association, will be a one-sided institution.
I very much hope that the door will be left open, and will be seen to be left open, to bringing in countries from both sides of the Iron Curtain, rather than confining it to countries on this side of the Iron Curtain. Otherwise, the charge will be made and the seeds of doubt will be sown in the minds of the leaders of the under-developed countries whether this is not an anti-Communist instrument rather than an instrument genuinely for their own benefit.
The other matter which I think could have been dealt with far better is this. Instead of having a five-yearly review of the resources of the Association, and the provision that the subscriptions should be increased at the end of five years, if it were seen fit to do so, I should have liked an automatic increase in the resources of the Association, pari passu with the increasing national incomes of the contributing countries. We have to find an immense amount of resources from the industrial countries of the West,


and, frankly, it is not easy in democracies to get people to make real sacrifices in their standards of living. What is more possible is to get them to forgo increases in their standards of living, and, therefore, a provision could have been written into the articles that as national incomes go up in the contributing countries, the contributions which they would make to the Fund would go up at the same time.
The reason why I attach a great deal of importance to this is that the gap between the standard of living of the Western nations and that of the nations of the under-developed countries is increasing at the present time, and has been in recent years, rather than narrowing. It is true that increases in the standards of living in the under-developed countries are taking place now, but the gap between the West and the East, between the West and Africa, is widening rather than narrowing. It must be a main objective of statesmen to see that, rather than have that gap widening, it should be narrowing.
If I may quote one or two figures to prove that point, taking the national income figures for 1953 as representing 100, in 1957—the latest figures I have-France had reached 121, Japan 127, Germany 128, Austria 136 and the United Kingdom 110. These are industrially developed countries with increases over that period of that order. In the under-developed countries, there are Ceylon with 107, India 105, the Belgian Congo 104, the Argentine 103 and Brazil 108. It is true that they have made advances, but they have made advances only one-third or a quarter of the advances made in the Western countries. Therefore, it seems to me that the gap between the standards of living in different kinds of territories is increasing all too rapidly. It should be our task to narrow rather than to widen that gap. If we do not, the economic contrast between the developed and the underdeveloped countries will build up into psychological contrasts. There will be psychological, racial and political tensions of very dangerous potentiality.
The argument for aiding people who are living in poverty is so often put forward in moral and humanitarian terms, because it is in the interests of

the people who are suffering that something should be done for them. I want to conclude by suggesting that it is just as much, if not almost more, one might be tempted to say, in our own interests, because unless we do succeed in overcoming this tremendous problem of world poverty, it will not be just those who are already suffering who will continue to suffer, but the whole world will be involved in a tremendous disaster in which those who regard themselves as living in affluent societies suffer as well.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Alan Hopkins: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) and to agree with the points he made, as indeed with those made by other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill, which will serve a very useful and important need in the world today. I follow him, also, in attaching great importance to Article V Section 1 (f) and Section 6 of the Articles of Agreement, which seem to go together. They are the provisions which lay down that no political influence is to be used in reaching any decision by the officials of the International Development Association.
At the same time, however, I hope that that will not mean that the funds which are provided by the member countries subscribing to the Association will be used by the under-developed countries in countries which have not themselves subscribed to the fund. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about that later.
I agree, also, with the hon. Member for East Ham, South when he says that there is some danger of rivalry among the international organisations which are set up. It appears that the members of the International Bank and its officials will wear two hats from now on, the hat of the International Bank itself and the tat of the International Development Association. Also, there are among others the Export-Import Bank in America, the C.D.C. in this country and the European Bank set up by the Western European Powers, all of them striving to do exactly the same thing— to develop the potential of the underdeveloped countries of the world.
One particular difficulty may rise. If a country is not to receive a loan from the International Bank, unless the reason for


rejection be that the project is not one which the Bank itself normally deals with, will there not be a danger that the country may be tempted so to arrange its finances that it will qualify for a soft loan under the International Development Association? I should regard that as a great drawback. However, in so far as the officials and members of the International Development Association will be members and officials of the International Bank also, this is a danger which they will have to face and, I have no doubt, they will succeed in overcoming it.
I very much welcome the Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members share a genuine and sincere desire that all the peoples of the world should have a high standard of living. It is incumbent upon us, one of the more industrialised countries of the world, so to secure, and to use. a certain percentage of our resources and the product of our own prosperity that people less fortunate today will soon be able to share with us in such a higher standard of life.
At the same time, we must recognise that the pattern of trade between countries is changing. Before the war, it was accepted that the exchange of goods lay primarily between countries with complementary economies, primary producers and industrialised countries. Today, on the other hand, it seems that the balance of trade has shifted and trade is increasing between countries which have highly industrialised economies. On this ground, too, I welcome the Bill, for it will provide a means whereby the present under-developed countries will be able to take their place with those already more developed.
I endorse the plea made by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) that the leaders of the Western countries and of Russia and the countries behind the Iron Curtain should come together so that a certain percentage of their national wealth should be given to an international organisation for the development of the rest of the world. If such a thing could be achieved, I would welcome it greatly. On the other hand, if it cannot be achieved, we must not forget that economic competition with Russia is something we must face, and this International Development Association and similar

associations in the West give us the means for engaging in such competition.
It is important to decide how much of the resources of this country we wish to place for investment abroad. The figure quoted in the White Paper, Cmnd. 974, is approximately £300 million per annum, of which about one-third is directly derived from private enterprise. The amount to which we are now committed by the Bill is about £46 million spread over five years. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us tonight about the picture of investment provided by private enterprise abroad that the Government have in mind in relation not only to the International Bank and the International Development Association, but in relation to other bilateral organisations and assistance to which we subscribe.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). A great deal has been done in the past by private enterprise abroad, and there is still a great deal more which needs to be done. To do it, however, private enterprise needs some of the protection now being afforded to it in the United States of America. Only last week, the Export-Import Bank announced a new change of policy which means, in effect, that manufacturers and investors in America will be able to have an insurance, a guarantee against expropriation of assets in a foreign country and the devaluation of local currency. These are two of many possible steps which might assist private enterprise in this country to play an even greater part abroad. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us tonight whether he feels that these and similar means might be or should be adopted to assist private enterprise in this respect.
I am sure that the Bill will be accepted by all hon. Members in the spirit in which it is conceived. Its aim is to enable countries to join together to do god and to help people less fortunate than themselves in the world today.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: Next to the problem of preventing the world from being destroyed by nuclear war, there is probably no greater problem than that of ending the division of the world into "have" and "have not"


nations. It is a division which ought to appal the conscience of mankind.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) pointed out, we should always have it present in our minds but, unfortunately, we are not often reminded of it because it is so continuous, so endemic and so ordinary in the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The size of the task has been variously estimated, but no estimate has been less than an annual investment of about 10 billion dollars to achieve a rise in the standard of living of the under-developed countries, two-thirds of the peoples of the world, within the course of twenty-five years.
I think that the type of aid required is clearly understood. It is technical assistance, capital investment in basic utilities and services and investment in the building up of industry and agriculture to develop progressive self-sustaining economies which can be beneficial primarily to the people in the area concerned rather than the return of profit to those who invest it. Judged against these criteria, what has been achieved up to now has been small and pitifully inadequate, although we in this country can feel that perhaps we have done more than others.
As a background to this debate, the Government produced a Whiter Paper purporting to show that under the auspices of the Government a substantial contribution has been made by this country towards investment in the underdeveloped areas. The total amount of that investment in 1959–60 is given as £240 million, which represents 1¼ per cent. of the national income. This has been contrasted—it was contrasted during the General Election—with the Labour Party's delared aim of an investment of 1 per cent. of the national economy in under-developed countries.
But the Labour Party has also advocated that this 1 per cent. should be supplementary to investment of private capital, and should not include it. The figures in the White Paper include £100 million for private investment and £138 million for Governmental assistance. The amount of private investment, therefore, is less than ½ per cent. of the national income.
This private investment is only one-third of the total estimated amount of overseas private investment on the average throughout the last seven years. It appears, therefore, that the bulk of private investment, as we know from experience, goes into the more developed countries, such as Australia and Canada. Of the remaining estimated amount of £100 million, a very large proportion goes into oil, mining and other extractive industries. In other words, as we know from experience and as we might expect, private investment has gone and continues to go to places where it can find substantial profits. Where it cannot do so, the amount of private investment is very small indeed.
The effect is that certain areas of the world benefit indirectly by the fact that they have natural resources which are easily exploitable, whereas other vast areas of the world gain no or very little benefit other than what can be received through direct Governmental and international aid. If we contrast the standard of living in Kuwait with that in the Nile Valley, or in an Indian village, we can see the difference between the fate of a people who happen to live where there are resources which can return large profits on private investment and that of a people who do not. In a few fortunate areas of the world, the local people are able to enjoy the crumbs of cake which fall from the rich man's table, while in vast areas millions are lacking bread. That is why, if the problem of aid to under-developed areas is to be tackled seriously, we must rely in the main on Governmental and international aid.
What this country has done in recent years has been far less than what we ought to be able to do. Table I in the White Paper Cmnd. 974 shows that throughout 1950–59 the average amount of Government assistance was less than half of 1 per cent. of the national income. Only in the last two years has there been a substantial increase. The breakdown of assistance in Table II shows that the greater part of this increase is accounted for by loans rather than by grants and technical assistance. Out of the total of £138·4 million, only £60 million is accounted for by grants, gifts and technical assistance, and £78·4 million by loan capital either directly through bilateral assistance or through


international organisations, such as the International Bank.
A loan has to be repaid, and it is normally repayable with interest. In the case of the loans being made bilaterally during 1959–60, the total amount repayable by the recipient territories on the loan of £60·4 million will be £95 million, according to the estimate given to me the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In other words, the amount of the loan will be repaid with an addition of 57 per cent.
What applies to British Government loans to British territories applies equally to loans made by the International Bank and the International Finance Corporation. The International Bank loans have been made at rates of interest varying between 3¾ per cent. and 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. In recent years there has been a tendency for the rate of interest to increase. In May last year, the rate was increased to 6 per cent., and it has remained 6 per cent. ever since.
Loans such as the £50 million for the Indian railways have been made on a 20-year basis at 6 per cent. interest. The loan of 56½ million dollars to the United Arab Republic for the Suez Canal development is being made on a 15-year basis, again at 6 per cent. interest. All the other loans made during the past nine months have been at that extremely high rate of interest. The total outstanding loans made by the International Bank are something over 4,400 million dollars, and on 30th June last year they stood at 4,426 million dollars.
If one takes an average rate of interest on those loans at about 5 per cent., one will find that, although no exact figures are available, the total amount repayable by the recipient countries is about 7,000 million dollars. That is to say, about £2,500 million will, in the course of the next fifteen or twenty years, be returned by these poverty-striken under-developed countries of the world to the world's bankers, financiers, investors and moneylenders. This is a measure of the kind of aid which has up to now formed the bulk of the aid given internationally through institutions with which this country is associated.
Three years ago, we had a new international institution formed, the International Finance Corporation. It was

said that the purpose of this body was to assist in the development of private enterprise in the under-developed countries by providing investment which would be partly in the form of risk-taking capital. The International Finance Corporation has a capital of only 100 million dollars, of which 94 million dollars is paid up, and its total investments so far amount to only 23 million dollars, on which it draws a rate of interest which is normally 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. plus a contingent share of profits in most cases.
Now we come to a further institution, the International Development Association. We on this side of the House certainly welcome the development of this institution and hope that it will go some way towards closing the immense gap which still exists between what is required and what is actually being done to help the under-developed countries.
We are glad to note that the I.D.A. will be in a position to make loans on less onerous terms and, in certain cases, for non-revenue producing purposes. I note, however, the reference made in the directors' report, paragraph 14, to the effect that loans will be able to be made for projects which are not revenue producing or directly productive; but this statement is not firmly reflected in the Articles of Agreement. I have not been able to find a form of words in Article V which explicitly authorises the directors to make non-revenue-producing loans.
I must confess to a little alarm at the statement of the Economic Secretary that, on the whole, the bulk of the loans made would probably be of a similar type, and for a similar type of project, to those which the International Bank makes, and also that the condition of commercial profitability would be applied in the majority of cases. If that is so, then this Association will still go only a very small way indeed towards doing what is required.
It has, moreover, the political limitation, to which my hon. Friend has already referred, that because its membership is limited to that of the International Bank the Communist countries are excluded and, being excluded from it, are also excluded from benefit. We should remember that about a quarter of the population of the under-developed


countries of the world—probably nearer one-third—happen to live in Communist countries, and if we are thinking in terms of international aid of a non. political character we ought to be thinking in terms of aid which could go partly to those countries as well as to the non-Communist world.
That is Why, in the last resort, I support very strongly the pleas made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesborough, East (Mr. Marquand), and others, that this form of aid still needs to be supplemented by a real international development authority from which funds come from all countries able to provide them, which is able to assist all countries which are in need of assistance, and Which is able to do so in the form of outright grants or loans, bearing either no interest at all or extremely low rates of interest.
This kind of organisation still needs to come into existence—an organisation of the type of S.U.N.F.E.D., which would have come into existence but for the opposition of this Government, among one or two others. We must continue to press for the recognition that effective aid can and must be given in this way. Not only savings on disarmament, when disarmament becomes effective, but other savings which can be made from the existing national income and resources of this and other countries can and should be devoted to such a purpose. In that way we could see that the aid is not only substantial in quantity, but motivated solely by humanitarian considerations without political, economic or other self-interested motives.

7.0 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: It is a pleasure to take part in a debate of this nature, in which the feelings of hon. Members, on both sides, are so closely allied. If we differ, we differ rather upon shades of emphasis than meaning. Some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) towards the end of his speech were, however, a little less than fair, because while membership of the Association and its benefits are limited to members of the Bank, there is nothing, as far as I know, to prevent the Communist countries from becoming members of the Bank if they so desire.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South) indicated assent.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am glad to have the confirmation of the right hon. Gentleman. I suspect that if some of the smaller Communist countries wished to apply for membership, it is not likely that their "big brother" would allow them to do so. Incidentally, the biggest brother of all, Communist China, is a member, so I do not think there is much validity—

Mr. Warbey: Surely, one of the difficulties is that so long as Formosa China is a member we are not likely to get Communist China in.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am obliged; that was my mistake.
The hon. Member spoke about finances being provided by the world's bankers, investors, financiers and moneylenders. Whatever form of words we use, any money that is provided is a drain upon the productive resources of the country which puts up the money. It is not the financiers, the moneylenders, the bankers or the investors who produce the resources; it is the workpeople and the industry of the country. Therefore, a description such as the hon. Member used is inapt in a debate in which both sides of the House are united in trying to serve the same end.
We are talking now of ends. That is why we are so much in agreement. Where we differ is usually on the means. The end of reducing world poverty is one with which we are all completely in agreement. As to means, the Bill is a modest Measure. The amount of money available—1,000 million dollars over five years—will not of its own account make any real inroad into the problem which we are discussing. We should, however, devote ourselves to the Bill and I should like to make a few points about it.
The modest means at the disposal of the International Development Association may be increased, not only by calling for fresh subscriptions from members, but by the provision in Article V, Section 2, that the Association has power to guarantee securities in which it has invested in order to facilitate their sale. When the Association does that, two things will come about. First, it will receive fresh resources with which


to operate anew. Secondly, it will set its seal of approval on the work it has done and on what might be called its viability.
The hon. Member for Ashfield was very scathing about the rates of interest which are customary on loans, and he described them as tribute. The object of all these loans is to increase the productive power of the under-developed countries. I do not consider it unfair that when that result is achieved and production is obtained, some return should be made to the lender of the money so that it can again be lent for the same purpose to other people.
The preamble to the Agreement speaks of the establishment of mutual cooperation and the desire for acceleration of the economic development of the under-developed world and suggests that an increased flow of capital will help to achieve this end. This is slightly on the platitudinous side, although I realise that in international documents platitudes cannot always be avoided.
The fact is that international aid is not a new thing. Thanks to the overwhelming generosity of the United States and also to the lesser, but nevertheless real, generosity of other countries, very great amounts have been given in international aid in the past ten years. The real question is how well it has been applied and to what extent, if at all, it has been wasted. On the view we take of the use which has been made of the money which has been given free, we can base our ideas as to how the funds which are now being put up for what I may describe as purposes which have a business background can best be used.
There is no question that to the newly-emancipated countries and to the under-developed countries, industrialisation makes a glamorous appeal. Many countries have embarked upon it successfully and some less successfully, and in some countries there is a danger that it will not succeed. There is, however, no question that if we think in terms of the cold war, there is no greater breeding ground for the principles of Communism than an urbanised proletariat which is working in conditions where the people do not see any real improvement in their living standards and yet cannot escape therefrom. Therefore, before the Association considers industrialisation, it must strongly consider agriculture. It is

much less glamorous but, at the same time, it is the crying need of Asia and Africa.
One of my colleagues described Africa as a giant but a flabby one. That is a pregnant saying, because Africa does not carry the population that it should carry in comparison with other continents. More than that, it does not nourish its population properly. The grave danger in Africa is the danger which appears as having developed in Guinea, where, I understand, the Prime Minister, Mr. Sekou Touré, has invoked the aid of Russian advisers and has found that to implement the plans of those advisers, he has had to introduce forced labour. This is a fact which we cannot regard as contributing to the object of raising the living standards of the under-developed countries.
We cannot, however, avoid the fact that to many Africans who are brought up on a low subsistence level, the object of work is to earn their subsistence and that when their subsistence has been obtained, not only does their enthusiasm for work disappear, but they become positively antagonistic towards it. I do not wish to be regarded as making an imputation against the inhabitants of that continent, but it is an observed fact that in some cases—I do not want to generalise—high wages in Africa do not bring the amount of work that they would attract in Europe, where wages can be properly spent.
I therefore welcome the provision in the Bill for technical assistance because —and one need only refer to paragraph 19 of the White Paper—if there is one thing that is clear, it is that between the coloured peoples and Europeans there is a real interdependence and the rôle of Europeans as technical advisers in all the developments of Africa is just as high in the countries which are emancipated or are shortly to be emancipated as ever it was before. Where there is a proper understanding of this position it seems to me that there is a chance of making the sort of progress for which the Bill seeks to provide.
In considering this Measure, my attention was drawn by my hon. Friend the member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) to a most remarkable document—the annual report of Mr. Grantham, the Chairman of the Chartered Bank. It deals with


developments over the whole of Asia. I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to it because Mr. Grantham writes with experience of many of the countries which come within the purview of this legislation—India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma, Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam and many more, and the speech is of great interest.
I should like to draw the attention of the House particularly to his conclusion, which I think contains a lesson for us all. He says:
The tremendous national pride of the young countries will not allow them to accept aid with terms attached and yet, as some of these countries are run today, aid will not put them on their feet and give them viable economies. The problem then is to find a formula which gives to these countries, with their consent, a control-free administration which will eliminate opportunities for bribery and corruption and a unit of currency having the same internal and external value, thus eliminating the rewards of smuggling and the other forms of currency evasion which run down the country's external assets—possibly in far greater sums than the aid received.
The sting of that applies to India, and it seems very good sense.
I do not know Mr. Grantham's politics, but I suspect that he supports our side of the House. He seems to me to take a dispassionate view of the problem. He adds:
It is not uncommon these days for leaders of new nations to state that democracy does not work with them but what is not said is that their inexperienced politicians and civil servants often find it beyond their powers to run restricted and controlled economies. Cannot, therefore, those advisers of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and those negotiating direct loans with these countries, advocate with more persuasiveness the freeing of rates of exchange, the concentration of trade in private hands, with the elimination of that increasing economic menace, state trading, and the ceasing of discrimination against the nationals and the trading of those highly-taxed countries whose peoples are bearing the cost of the aid?
It seems to me that the Bill is a contribution to this point and, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the better the I.D.A. husbands its resources the more often it will be able to use them and the greater the areas to which it will be able to apply its assistance.
This is a phase in the cold war. It is part of the struggle for men's minds in which we are engaged. I believe that

the Bill could be an extraordinarily valuable instrument in that struggle as long as we realise that aid must be used with sense and not squandered. I am not altogether happy about the composition of the Board or necessarily of the management. My own feeling is that we should do more good, probably, in the places where the aid is needed if we had regional plans of the nature of the Colombo Plan. A former right hon. Member opposite, Mr. Kenneth Younger, advocated recently a Colombo Plan for Africa. That would seem to me a plan which would have the financial aid of the major producing Powers who are most interested and who would administer, with the new and emerging territories, the funds which they might have at their disposal.
We remember that the Colombo Plan began very modestly, but its success attracted further support. I know that we should be aiming too high if we thought that we could cure world poverty by this I.D.A. plan. It would be an illusion to think so, and if we do not have that illusion ourselves it is important that we should not give it to other people. The Bill is a useful instrument. We should support it, but it is by no means the only thing we can do. Something in the nature of a Colombo Plan for Africa, under which those interested could meet round the table, would prove in the long run an even more effective weapon in the cold war.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) said and, in particular, with the point he made that some organisation should be set up similar to the Colombo Plan for South-East Asia. That is a suggestion which is very much worth considering. I would also agree with the hon. Member that, however much we may be able to do under this new International Development Association, we shall not solve the problem of world poverty.
I shall revert to that subject, but first I should like to say something about the rôle which will have to be played by private capital in aid to the underdeveloped countries, as distinct from the rô1e which will have to be played by


Governments, by bilateral or multilateral assistance. This is something which has been considered a great deal in the course of the debate. It has been pointed out from this side of the House that only about a third of private British capital goes to the under-developed countries in the first place and, secondly, of that third of £100 million a year— although we have no exact information on this—a good deal must go to the extractive industries such as oil, tin and copper. Most of the capital also goes to projects which have a high degree of profitability.
It is certainly true that these often have a high degree of profitability, but there is another aspect of that to which I should like to draw attention. It is that the investment in these extractive industries is largely investment in industries in which the West or the developed countries of the world have a direct economic interest. In other words, the products of these under-developed countries are largely used not in the underdeveloped countries but in the developed countries of the West and elsewhere.
One of the objections to and one of the inadequacies of private capital in the under-developed countries is that it tends to go to industries in which the West has a direct economic interest. It becomes impossible, for example, to get private capital invested in agriculture, with an emphasis on internal consumption in the under-developed countries themselves. It seems to me, therefore, that the emphasis has been and will have to continue to be on governmental assistance by bilateral or multilateral arrangements through the International Bank or the International Development Association. It has already been pointed out that the amount of assistance which the British Government are supplying at present by no means represents an intolerable burden on the British economy. The figures have gone up substantially, and we are glad to see that for 1959–60 there is an estimate of £138 million.
I was very glad, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) pointed out that a great deal of that assistance was in the form of loans rather than grants, because there is an impression created that any assistance which is given abroad is necessarily in the form of grants, whereas in fact a

bigger percentage of assistance is actually in the form of loans on which interest accrues, and which ultimately are repaid. So the net amount of assistance, when we exclude the loans, does not represent an intolerable burden on the production of this country, and the gross amount does not, or should not, represent an intolerable burden on our balance of payments.
However much we may do in the way of bilateral arrangements, it seems to me that the importance of multilateral arrangements, when we are considering particularly countries which are neither Colonies nor in the Commonwealth, is likely to increase, not only from an economic point of view but also from a political point of view. It is difficult sometimes to negotiate bilateral assistance if there is not the special relationship which we have with our Colonies and with our Commonwealth countries, because of the political difficulties.
The House as a whole is by no means sentimental on this question. The general feeling is that if aid is to be given it should be given to worth-while projects, that it should be applied in a direct and reasonable way and, in particular, that none of it should be subject to corruption or go into the pockets of private individuals instead of for the benefit of the countries concerned.
It is easier really for an international authority such as the International Bank to stipulate conditions about all these factors than it is for one individual country, which may incur the charge of interfering in the internal affairs of the recipient country. That is why I think it is important that an increasing amount of our assistance should be channelled through the international agencies.
As has been said today, the International Bank has been extremely successful in the aid it has given since its inception in 1946. It is also true that the terms on which the aid is given are fairly onerous, particularly now that it is charging an interest rate of 6 per cent. After an under-developed country has a series of loans from the International Bank, the repayments of capital and interest in themselves become a burden, and it is obviously difficult to give all the aid we want to give to underdeveloped territories if the individual projects have to meet the stringent


criteria that the International Bank lays down, and also if the interest rates are to be as high as the 6 per cent. which that Bank now charges. Therefore, all of us are pleased that the International Development Association will be able to give loans on considerably less stringent terms than the International Bank is giving at the present time.
There may be a certain amount of confusion as to what kind of developments the International Development Association will finance, because I notice in the White Paper containing the Articles of Agreement of the International Development Association the following statement:
Thus projects such as water supply, sanitation, pilot housing, and the like are eligible for financing, although it is expected that a major part of the Association's financing is likely to be for projects of the type financed by the Bank.
I hope that this will be interpreted rather liberally and that some of the stringent conditions which have been laid down by the Bank as to the kind of projects which it is willing to finance will be slackened somewhat in the actual working of the International Development Association.
Now I want to say something about the sums involved, and here I am taking up a point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall, South. The sum involved in the International Development Association will be 1,000 million dollars over five years. That is approximately £350 million, or roughly £70 million a year. At the end of the five years there is to be a question of further subscriptions, and in the nature of things all of us would hope that the subsequent subscriptions to the Association will be substantially higher than the initial subscriptions which are to be contributed over the first five years.
If we take the first period we find that there will be an annual level of investment of about £70 million a year. This is assuming that all the subscriptions are invested or loaned as they are paid in. If we add to that the present level of investment by the International Bank itself, which is running at about 700 million dollars a year, or £250 million a year, we get a total amount of around £320 million a year.
I want to draw some parallels here with the amount of money we are spend-

ing on rearmament and defence. The £320 million would still represent only one-fifth of the United Kingdom's annual defence budget. What is more, the total gross investment of the International Bank to the present date is about 4,500 million dollars, which is approximately equal to only one year's expenditure by the United Kingdom on defence. This is the expenditure by the International Bank over the years since its inception in 1946.
If we were to compare the total expenditure by the International Bank and by other international organisations not just with Britain's rearmament expenditure but with the armament expenditure of the whole world, we would appreciate how insignificant a contribution the various schemes of the International Bank and of this Association will make to the solution of the tremendous problem of world poverty.
In fact, it is extremely difficult to get a balance between our direct expenditure on defence and the amount we spend, which has indirectly a defence aspect—or a cold war aspect if we put it at its most brutal—on investment in under-developed territories. I suggest, however, that there is something wrong with the balance at the present time. It certainly would be useful if simultaneously with disarmament, as has been suggested, we were to have the establishment of some world development authority which would take some of the money at present spent on arms for economic development.
I hope, too, that when we are considering the tremendous sums which are being spent on armaments and the comparatively small sums which are being spent on capital investment, we shall also look at the very small sums which are being spent through the various United Nations Agencies on technical assistance. I know that the figures of the various agencies of the United Nations are not necessarily complete, because there is a certain amount of technical assistance through the International Bank which is included in the total International Bank investment. However, when we look at some of the small budgets of the United Nations Agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health


Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O., the International Labour Organisation, the expanded Technical Assistance Programme and the rest, we must all be profoundly dissatisfied with the sums of money that are being spent on these various forms of technical assistance.
There is a real difficulty here, in that the amount of technically qualified personnel available to carry out the assistance is limited, so it is not just a question of money. I hope that this is something to which we shall continue to give emphasis and that we do not get too obsessed with or bemused by the dramatic projects in which the World Bank or the I.D.A. very often indulge. I hope we shall remember that there is a great deal of back-breaking day-to-day work in advice and technical "know-how" which may be done without the expenditure of considerable sums of money, and which can give advantage both to the under-developed countries and to the rest of us quite disproportionate to the cost.
There is often an impression that any money we give to under-developed countries is, in some way, money poured down the drain. In particular, there is usually an inadequate realisation of the amount of work which the underdeveloped countries are doing for themselves—the amount of development which they are financing from their own internal resources. One of the most heartening features of the last few years has been the extent to which terribly poor countries have been willing to forgo some current consumption in order to help to finance current development programmes.
One of the great difficulties we have in this country is striking a balance between current consumption and capital investment—and like many other hon. Members I am not sure that we come to the right answer about it. It is very much more difficult for some of these very poor countries, with average incomes per head per annum of £25 to £50, to deny themselves any sort of current consumption at all in order to help in the financing of capital development programmes.
The great difficulty in all these territories is getting any sort of impetus to improvement in the standard of living. The money which is being spent, has

been spent and is projected very often has no other effect than that of merely keeping them in exactly the same position as they were at the start of the programme. They have great difficulty in preventing themselves from sliding backwards.
When we compare what is happening in under-developed areas with what is happening in the West and in developed areas generally, we find that this gap between rich and poor nations is increasing to an alarming extent. The general feeling of the House, I believe, is that the I.D.A. represents a step forward. We all welcome it from that point of view, but taking it in the context of the problem with which we are dealing, and in the context of the vast sums of money we are spending on other things, particularly on armaments, we realise that this is a very small first step, perhaps even a timid one. and something on which we must build in the years to come.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) spoke about the inadequacy of private capital. I am sure that he is aware of the C.D.F.C. of the United Kingdom which has a very significant contribution from private industry. There is also M.I.D.E.C.—an enormous organisation of private companies operating in the Middle East. He will also be aware of consortia operating all over the world, for instance, for building steel works in India, and projects in Africa.
It will not have escaped the attention of the Government that of the total commitments of the World Bank since its inception, 56 per cent. are invested in Western Europe, which is not an underdeveloped area. It is true to say, however, that much more money has been devoted in recent years to Asia, though I would like to see greater funds diverted to what I might term the "New Continent" of Africa.
I should like to pursue the line thrown out by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who indicated that the capacity of the United Kingdom was such that it could devote a greater sum to under-developed countries. The enormous contribution by the United States since the war has totalled 76 billion dollars. As a percentage of the


national income of the United States, it works out at 1·4 per cent. An equivalent figure for the United Kingdom would work out at something like £250 million, but we find that the actual contribution from the United Kingdom is only £130 million, which is falling a little short of the figure I have in mind.
The contribution of France, on the basis of 1·4 per cent. of the national income, is £212 million. France is, however, contributing about £300 million, largely because of vast expenditure on war potential in Algeria. This money has not been spread evenly through African territories.
Another potential contributor is West Germany, where 14 per cent. of the national income would be equivalent to £200 million. But West Germany is only contributing between £35 million and £40 million—which is 02 per cent. of the national income.
We must regard this investment, in the terms of Mr. Black, as a first step. Mr. Adlai Stevenson, however, indicated that a survey of under-developed countries would show that something like 5 billion dollars per annum is required. That is quite beyond the capacity of the world. There is another rather interesting comparison. Over the past five years the State aid which has emanated from the United Kingdom works out at £488 million, and the State aid from the United States at £3,866 million. The interesting comparison is the amount of State aid to underdeveloped territories from the Soviet Union over that period. It was £800 million, of which only between £250 million and £300 million has been actually disbursed. As we know from past experience, it has political strings attached.
According to the last report of the World Bank, its commitments were approximately 703 million dollars. Added to that is a contribution from the I.F.C. of 94 million dollars. Suppose the I.D.A. contributes between 150 million dollars and 200 million dollars, Annually the total of all three is a small contribution compared with world needs. It is simply a drop in the ocean.
I ask hon. Members to tot up one or two simple figures. The Aswan Dam will cost about £300 million, the Snowy

River Project in Australia about £338 million, the Volta Aluminium Scheme in Ghana about £343 million, and the Indus Waters Project in Pakistan about £357 million. I am seeking to indicate the enormous responsibility which the rest of the world has to shoulder for our brethren overseas in under-developed territories. The premium we are prepared to pay to ward off poverty in some of these countries is very small when measured alongside the percentage contribution of our national income.
In considering the White Paper I was rather disquieted when the Economic Secretary, in dealing with supplementary resources, mentioned that they would be supplied by the United States and that it was unlikely that a contribution would come from the United Kingdom. I now ask the Minister of State whether the supplementary resources provisions in Article III were written in at the behest of the United States. Was it the purpose that the resources accumulated abroad under Public Law No. 480—that is, enormous surpluses of soft currencies from the sale of its agricultural produce—would be dumped on the I.D.A.? Or has it been inscribed for some other purpose? Is it likely that any country apart from the United States will subscribe to these supplementary resources?
One other matter that I have noted with great satisfaction is dealt with in Article V of the Articles of Agreement. Section I (c) says:
The Association shall not provide financing if in its opinion such financing is available from private sources on terms which are reasonable for the recipient or could be provided by a loan of the type made by the Bank.
This implies that the operation of the I.D.A. is supplementary to the provision of private capital. We should have some law and order in this matter. There must be some security for investment.
Mention has been made of commercial treaties negotiated by the United States with at least seventeen countries. Why do not we negotiate some treaties? Guarantees have also been negotiated by the United States on behalf of investors in forty countries. This pattern is being followed by West Germany. Could it not be followed by the United Kingdom? Following a recent debate we had upon the formation of the E.F.T.A., it occurred to me that it would


be a good thing if an E.F.T.A. development fund could be formed for the aid of member territories in Africa. This is simply an idea. It occurred to me that if we are to subscribe further sums in future we could have a development fund provided by the United Kingdom, made up of contributions from many people in Britain. They could make a contribution to the worthy cause of helping their brethen overseas.
I have spoken long enough about the disirability of our assisting our brethren overseas, and I turn now to a point that has escaped the attention of many hon. Members and which is indicated in Article V Section 1 (f and g), which refers to the prospect of "untied" capital. This is of immense importance to the United Kingdom. One has only to read the Radcliffe Report on this point. In paragraph 898 the Report says:
We consider that the immediate approach to the problems of export finance should rather be, as we have suggested, to encourage by word and deed the international provision of capital untied to specific purchases of goods or construction contracts.
When one remembers that the World Bank, the I.F.C., the I.D.A. and the Latin-American Development Bank all have untied purchases, we realise that British exporters will have an opportunity of being able to secure contracts as the years go by. If these loans were "tied" it would be different.
When we remember that of the funds allocated by the World Bank in 1958, no less than 39 per cent. were spent in the United States, 19 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 17 per cent. in West Germany on an "untied basis", we realise that it is a regrettable step that the Development Loan Fund, which has been providing so much money, has gone the other way, and that its loans are now "tied" instead of being untied. I return to the precepts of the Radcliffe Report, namely, that the way to make the fastest progress is by having "untied" capital. I am glad to find that provision written into the Articles of Agreement of the I.D.A.
To summarise, I feel that while this Agreement is a start, much work remains to be done in the under-developed areas, particularly on the Continent of Asia, Africa and Latin America. We must tighten our belts a little more and

contribute more out of our national income. We must remember that long-term loans have the advantage of not being subject to the terms of the Berne Convention, but that export credits will remain subject to those terms and limitations. We must consider whether it is best to make loans or outright gifts.
We have now created a new unit, as an affiliate of the World Bank. The I.D.A. will do a great deal of work, but we should not expect too much of it in the next five years. The I.F.C., which was hailed with great enthusiasm several years ago, has not been very successful. It has had a very slow start. But many of us are confident that in the years to come these three great institutions will play their part, along with private capital.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I have listened with interest to the speeches which have been made. I must take up one or two mis-statements of fact made by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet), especially with regard to his-analysis of American aid.
First, however, the House should ask itself what it is talking about. We are discussing the International Development Association Bill, whose Preamble states that it is to enable the Government to enter into an international agreement
for the establishment and operation of an International Development Association, and for purposes connected therewith.
Let us look at the "purposes connected therewith." We have the White Paper, which Members of the House and those members of the public who are interested have seen. Let us have no illusions about it; this is another agency which has been set up in this proliferation of pacts with international agencies, and this alphabetical list of agencies is now befogging and bewildering the Westerns world. Is there any need for this International Development Association? It can certainly serve a purpose, but let us have no illusions about it; it is whistling in the wind in world affairs.
The whole thing gives itself away by saying that it will enter into no agreements if private enterprise can do the work. We have heard eulogies of private enterprise in international investment, but let us take the American figures.

Mr. Skeet: I wonder whether the hon. Member will quote the Article in question.

Mr. Davies: Let us consider the question of international investment. We have been trying to encourage private capital to invest in the backward areas of the world. Let us examine the facts —not facts made up by Conservative Members of Parliament, but facts with regard to the Mutual Security Programme which President Eisenhower has presented to the United States Congress. What was the new American investment all over the world? Petrol and oil—and a drop of oil is worth a drop of blood— accounted for 62 per cent. of the new investment of America in the year before last. It amounted to 1,138 million dollars. No less than 14 per cent. of new American investment last year—amounting to 26·4 million dollars—went to Canada. Fourteen per cent. of it went to Latin America, the majority of it into the oil areas. Six per cent. went to Europe, but the parts of the world with which we are concerned, the nations which live in the lands of Asia, South-East Asia and Africa, received only 4 per cent. of American new private capital, to a total of 79 million dollars.

Mr. Skeet: rose—

Mr. Davies: I will give way later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point. What encouragement will this give to private capital to go into these areas? What is the real truth? The hon. Gentleman is a business man. He is interested in finance, but he would not put his capital into Africa, Asia, or South-East Asia, or the backward areas, unless he had a guarantee of a good return on capital.

Mr. Skeet: May I answer—

Mr. Davies: Not yet. The hon. Gentleman asked for this reply because of the slick way in which he dealt with the problem. I warn the hon. Gentleman that it was altogether too slick. I always give way, but I will do so when I want to and not when the hon. Gentleman wants me to.
We all support the purpose of the International Development Association, but we have no illusions. It would be worth while to look at the backward areas to see what aid was given. The

impression was given to the House that American aid all over the world reached colossal proportions, but let us see what is the truth. There was a series of broadcasts on this, and articles appeared in the Listener, if the hon. Gentleman wants to read them, about Soviet and Sino-Soviet aid to the world. Before Mr. Foster Dulles died he said that Sino-Soviet aid was catching up with the aid given by the Western world.

Mr. Skeet: Mr. Skeet indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in complete ignorance. He had better wait. Let us analyse the figures. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying "No". Evidently that is the way he got 'his votes at the election, but this is a different place from the rostrum.
President Eisenhower's Report on the Mutual Security Programme said that approximately three-quarters of the money made available in the Mutual Security Programme was used for military assistance and defence support. I emphasise that. That is not foreign aid but an essential integral part of the national defence programme. My argument, and for this purpose I am borrowing the argument put before Congress, is that 75 per cent. of American expenditure overseas is not foreign aid but an essential part of the defence programme. International economists at the United Nations who have analysed the amount of direct Soviet aid have found that Soviet aid accounts for 25 per cent. of the aid provided for under-developed countries. The Soviet Union has come very near to catching up the United States of America.
Because I have slashed, cut and thrust at the hon. Gentleman, I now give way out of fairness to him.

Mr. Skeet: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I can slash in return. The hon. Gentleman, when referring to the aid given by the Government of the United States, forgot to mention the aid granted by the Export-Import Bank which derives its funds from governmental sources. If one considers the period 1934 to 1959, which is a considerable period, 36 per cent. went to Latin America, 37 per cent. went to Europe, 20 per cent. went to Asia, and 7 per cent. to others. The hon.


Gentleman mentioned the Mutual Security Agency, which is part of the I.C.A.—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to intervene, but the hon. Member is not permitted to make more than one speech.

Mr. Davies: I think I have made my point clear enough, and I have used the United States Report to make that point.
Both sides of the House support this, but as one of my hon. Friends pointed out. and here I quote the American figures on page 120 of this year's Report to the American Congress on the Mutual Security Programme, we get this sad fact bought before the world. The United States Congress was told that rice production in Asia was 18 per cent. up on pre-war production but the population was up by 27 per cent. The result, as my hon. Friend said, is that, like Alice through the Looking Glass, at the end of all this business of the World Bank and everything else the standard of living is lower today than it was in 1938. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he had better read the Report of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East.
The hon. Member will find that each year the Commission bewails the fact that the technical and economic aid that the United Nations wishes to give in Africa and South-East Asia is warped by the continuance of the cold war. This is shown by an analysis of the economy of Japan which is a friend of the free world. They were yellow rats without tails during the war, but under the system advocated by the hon. Gentleman and his Friends, friends of the last war are enemies for the next twenty years. Those who were yellow rats without tails are now our friends, although I never thought that that description applied to the Japanese.
Let us look at how Japan is suffering because of this business of keeping up the cold war. Japan is eager to get trade in Eastern Siberia. There is the possibility of a 20 million dollar contract in Eastern Siberia, but Japan is linked with Western policy. That is one of the difficulties of a link with Western policy. It is amazing that China is competing in the South-East Asia market for the supply of sewing machines, small tools, and goods like that.
Pre-war China was Japan's first customer. In 1955 China was not in the first fifteen of Japan's customers. In 1956, she was not in the first twelve. In the mid-1930's China supplied Japan with 25 per cent. of her pig iron. Last year but one she supplied Japan with no pig iron, and that country had to buy dollar pig iron. In the mid-1930's China supplied Japan with 40 per cent. of her salt. Last year it was 30 per cent. At one time she supplied Japan with 40 per cent. of her hides and skins for shoes and clothing. Last year the figure was only 7 per cent. Before the war China supplied Japan with 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. of her soya beans for food. Last year she supplied only 25 per cent.
The Japanese economy has been channelled into the hard currency area, with the result that inside Japan one has difficulties and problems to maintain the standard of living. It is no good right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House arguing about this. Those facts are known to statisticians, economists, and men of the world who work in the United Nations and in South-East Asia.
My criticism is that there is one world organisation which the nations of the free world—they call themselves the free world—should support. The United Nations has an Economic Commission for Africa. Why not support that and build it up? Why not support the Economic Commission for Asia and South-East Asia? One hon. Member spoke as though aid was being provided for China and the 650 million people there. He made a slight mistake. This relates to the tail-end of Taiwan, and to pretend that Taiwan is one of the areas which will join in freely without political strings is simply to deceive ourselves. In November, 1957, speaking in America, Mr. Khrushchev said:
We declare war upon you in the peaceful field of trade. We declare a war we will win over the United States. The threat to the United States is not the I.C.B.M. but in the field of peaceful production. We are relentless in this, and we will prove the superiority of our system.
The Mutual Security men said last year that in 13 years American foreign trade has cost only half of the cost of one year of Word War II. The total cost of postwar programmes of aid and security to 1958 amounted to 60 billion dollars, Of this, less than 40 billion dollars had been


spent under the Mutual Security Programme. The cost of one year of war was 80 billion dollars. The cost of the Mutual Security Programme to the United States is the price of an airmail stamp a day. But 50 per cent. of the goods taken to foreign countries must be taken in American ships. Will there be revelations like that connected with this authority? I hope not, and there should not be.
Will there be a mutual security programme to create jobs? Will there be sold 7 billion dollars worth of agriculture surplus? Will work be found for 600,000 American people, which is a good thing in its way? It is all linked with the agony of the cold war, and I am asking that the "powers that be," instead of setting up all these various little organisations, should allow private enterprise to set them up if it wishes outside the sphere of Government. If a group of financiers in London wanted to invest in one of the backward areas, they could form a company without the backing of the Government. There is too much of private enterprise coming to the Government and asking for subsidies and support for its projects. Hon. Members opposite scoff at public ownership, but they are the first to support private enterprise when it rushes to the Government for aid or for international support when it creates some international organisation which in the end is designed to benefit the investor first and foremost.
Let us put this matter on a straight basis. I am not saying that investment is evil. I am saying that we shall not get the investment about which the hon. Member for Willesden, East spoke, because people will not invest money in projects in these backward areas without some type of security. In the atmosphere of a cold war and a driving down of the standards of life those conditions cannot prevail, and economists know that to be true.
I made speeches in this House years ago on the subject. All this talk about aid is rubbish unless there is stability in commodity prices. If we pour £1 million worth of aid into Malaya, what good is that if tomorrow night on the London Stock Exchange and in Wall Street the price of rubber drops by 3d. a lb. in the play which takes place in commodity prices? Unless we can get stability in

commodity prices, none of these aid schemes is of any use. That is the tragedy.

Mr. Skeet: Mr. Skeet indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman shakes his head as though this makes no sense, he does not understand the world in which he lives.
Professor MacMahon Ball wrote a whole book on this thesis. The point is that much more use than setting up this organisation would be the creation of an organisation to try to secure long-term contracts and bulk buying such as was done by the Labour Government when we were in power. We were scoffed at for doing it, but it gave greater security to the backward nations than anything of the kind we are now discussing.
During a period of capital investment there is always the danger that there will be roaring inflation if we are not careful. Recently I was in Indo-China in the Mekong area, and I know about the schemes which are going on there. In such areas the inhabitants are not so much backward—I do not like that expression—as under-privileged. They may be more cultured than Western men, but they are under-privileged regarding material things. If we drag thousands of workers from their villages and put them on a wage-earning economy and do not provide the products for them to purchase with those wages and if there is no planning, there will be no progress. Hon. Members opposite want a laisser faire economy, but without planning these areas will become more backward instead of making progress.
There are four main ways in which aid can be given to backward countries. Will this Association take advantage of all four? Will it encourage trade? Would it be prepared to enter into negotiations for buying for the small entrepeneur? May we know on what terms and to what extent it will provide loans and grants? We are not clear about that. Will it take up the training of manpower? If so, I say that the organisations created by Western man are overlapping in so many ways that he is defeating his own purpose. That is why the Soviet bloc and the Sino-Soviet bloc is defeating us—because of this craze for setting up organisations


every three months for all sorts of purposes instead of directing the destiny of the world by agencies and organisations which will be under the umbrella of the United Nations.
I may have introduced a new note into the debate, but it is a note of reality. If we are not careful all this business will collapse in agony and misery. We must change the direction of the approach of Western man to the old questions of war and the future of mankind. I regret to say that this organisation is not the kind of dynamic thing which the United Kingdom should be supporting at this juncture. There is one place in which the United Kingdom should work—let us get back to the United Nations and support it.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I wholly agree with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that this is one of the most important subjects that we can debate in this House. Apart, perhaps, from nuclear disarmament it is the most crucial issue at present facing the world. This problem of economic inequality between nations almost looks like—I do not say superseding—but, at any rate, dwarfing the problems of economic equality within nations which has been tormenting the industrial countries for the last hundred years.
We do not need to be told that two-thirds of the world population is hungry, or that India's average income per head today is only one-sixteenth of ours. Nevertheless, these figures show that whatever may be true of Great Britain, or of the United States, the world certainly is not an affluent society today. What we really need now is a little more international socialism.
We have heard many approaches to the economics of the problems during the debate, but, however we approach it, it comes back to this simple fact. Today, an Indian peasant, or, for that matter, a Chinese or a Russian peasant, living on the land, unemployed and earning no wages, cannot raise his standard of living or that of his family unless he can either leave the land and take a wage-earning job or improve his methods of cultivating the land. He cannot do either of those things without capital and he is too poor to save. That must be where we start. No progress can be made until a great

deal of capital is brought in from outside.
Although I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) said, as I shall show in a moment, I think we can at least congratulate ourselves on the general strategy with which the Western world has attacked this problem since the war. By the original formation of the International Fund and the International Bank, by the Colombo Plan and a great deal else that has followed, the effort has been directed to the right target. It has been, partly anyway, cooperative and planned and carried out under United Nations auspices. I think that we can say it has had some success, but—here I agree with my hon. Friend, even though I may not express myself quite so eloquently—the whole enterprise still suffers from two defects.
First, there is far too much tendency for aid to take the form of a competitive struggle between East and West rather than to appear to the underdeveloped countries as a joint enterprise by both Communist and non-Communist countries. It always seems to me that the story of the Aswan Dam was a solemn lesson and an example of how this kind of thing should not be done. No doubt in the world as it is today some competitive effort is inevitable, but I feel that the more the Government can contrive to bring the whole impulse under the United Nations and, therefore, present it, not as either a Communist or anti-Communist enterprise, but as a joint one, the better it will be for all of us.
Secondly, in spite of all that has been done, I think that the scale of the effort is still too puny compared either with the immensity of the need or with the resources of the richer countries. I cannot share the complacency of the Government White Paper on Assistance from the United Kingdom, which builds itself up smoothly, page by page, to the comfortable conclusion that the United Kingdom assistance—public and private—to less-developed countries already equals 1¼ per cent. of the British national income. The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations will find that on page 16 of the White Paper.
If this is supposed to show that the Government have already reached the Labour Party's target of at least a 1 per


cent. contribution, I am afraid it suffers from one major defect of logic straight away. We propose that the United Kingdom Government assistance by itself should reach at least 1 per cent., quite apart from private investment, while, of course, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, the 1¼ per cent. mentioned in the White Paper is public and private investment together.
The figures in the White Paper and the 1¼ per cent. are also gross figures. If we were to deduct all forms of loans, capital payments, return of profits by international companies, and so forth, from the less-developed countries to the United Kingdom, I am not at all sure how the balance would work out. I do not know whether the Government can tell us, but would it not cancel out probably something up to a third of the £240 million which is supposed to represent this 1¼ per cent.?
I see from the latest balance of payments figures, that the sterling balances held here by the sterling area—which are, of course, funds lent to us from them—rose by £146 million in 1959. That suggests that there is a considerable counter-payment going on. We are told in the White Paper that net private investment overseas year by year is not £300 million, but only £200 million. If the same ratio were to apply over the same field it would follow that the total would be £160 million, not £240 million.
If one looks rather more closely at how the £240 million is made up, other doubts arise. We are told—and this is remarkably interesting—that the private enterprise effort, even gross, not net, has been an investment of £300 million a year overseas and only about £100 million of that has gone to the less-developed areas. So only £65 million net has gone to the poorer areas. Therefore, if one takes these figures at their face value, the rather startling conclusion emerges that two-thirds of British private investment abroad is going to the already highly-developed rather than to the less-developed countries.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I am sorry to interrupt, but I was not quite clear where the right hon. Member got the figure of £65 million. Was he deducting from the £100 million £35 million which was the proportion he

assumed was reinvested in this country by under-developed countries?

Mr. Jay: I was taking the figure of two-thirds, which appears to be the net figure applicable to the total of private investment, and applying it to the proportion which the White Paper tells us is spent in the less-developed countries. From that it would be about £65 million or £66 million in the less-developed countries.
I agree that those are suspiciously round figures, but they are all that the White Paper can give us. They show that if the whole thing were left to private enterprise apparently £2 would be invested in schemes like skyscraper offices in New York and Vancouver for every £1 invested in fertiliser factories giving work to Indian peasants.
We could not have a plainer proof than the White Paper—and the Economic Secretary did not dispute this—that private enterprise investment is not enough. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), I am all for encouraging private investment in these areas. In many cases, a partnership between private and public investment is desirable and possible, but I think it overwhelmingly plain that private effort alone is only scratching the surface of the problem.
The White Paper fails to mention another point which was touched on by my hon. Friend. I suspect that a very high proportion of this £300 million gross private investment is in oil development. I suggest that more than 50 per cent. of the gross £300 million, and perhaps 80 per cent. of the £100 million in the poorer areas is in the oil industry. I do not know whether the Minister can give us the figures tonight. It follows that if we take net non-oil private investment in the poorer countries that must be running at something less than £50 million a year.
I do not despise the efforts of the great oil companies at international development in the last fifteen years. Ironically enough, and no doubt not for altruistic motives, the international oil companies have probably done quantitatively more to develop underdeveloped countries than any single agency, apart from the International Bank. Probably they have done it in a better planned fashion than they would have done it twenty or thirty years ago.


The trouble is that, apart from refineries which admittedly are built in almost every type of country, this oil development takes place only in countries where oil is to be found. That means that the private effort in non-oil-bearing areas is necessarily very small indeed.
As to United Kingdom Government's assistance, the Government told us that £138 million—again gross—for 1958–59, apart from some small sums, went to the less-developed countries. I accept that that is broadly true, but the White Paper does not tell us what the definition of "less-developed countries" is for this purpose. We are not told that. Would it be possible to know before the debate ends what definition the Government are here using?
Nevertheless, even if the total net investment by the United Kingdom in less developed areas were 1 per cent. of the national income, it would not be, if viewed from the angle of the world as a whole, a very impressive effort. After all, a highly developed country like ourselves should be saving at least 10 per cent. of its national income every year. Is it adequate, either for the needs of the world, or even a sensible use of economic resources, to be investing nine-tenths of our savings in the already highly developed parts of the world? One is bound to ask oneself that question even if the total is 1 per cent.
The actual method of supplying the needed capital which the Government bring before us today—that is, through the new institution of the International Development Association—seems to us, on the whole, broadly the right one. It at least has the merit of being linked with the International Bank which is itself, if perhaps indirectly, under the auspices of the United Nations. I think that we must all agree that the Bank has proved an extremely successful institution. Indeed, perhaps in some ways it has been the most successful international institution started since 1945. I agree with those hon. Members who said that we should pay a tribute to it in the House this afternoon.
In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Leek said about the inadequacy of the total effort, the Bank alone has lent 4,000 million dollars since 1945, or a sum very close to it. Only last week it made two loans totalling 100 million

dollars in themselves, which shows that the scale of its effort compared with other agencies is quite considerable. All the evidence is now building up that the Bank has lent wisely. Indeed, very little, if any, of the money has been either wasted or lost. It can claim, also, to have spread the funds fairly widely over both countries and projects of different kinds.
I think that one would be hypercritical if one sought to find a criticism of Mr. Black, but if there is any criticism which one can make of him, apart from the original terms of reference, which were not of his making, it is perhaps that ha carries his natural trans-Atlantic bias in favour of private enterprise and against public enterprise to rather excessive lengths for the conduct of this job. I believe that the truth is that here, as indeed elsewhere, we need more private enterprise and more public enterprise at the same time.
Nevertheless, I remember, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East, that when, in July, 1955, the Government introduced in the House—it was the present Financial Secretary who did it then, in his capacity as Economic Secretary—the previous Bank's plan for an International Finance Corporation, about which the Economic Secretary today did not say anything, which was linked, like the I.D.A., with the Bank, we on this side strongly criticised the limitation in that scheme of the I.F.C. to supporting private investment alone. Indeed, I asked the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, on 1st July, 1955:
Is it really necessary that the proposed Corporation … should be rigidly limited to operating through private enterprise alone? Secondly, why do the Government still refuse to subscribe to the far more imaginative, flexible and comprehensive Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development, or S.U.N.F.E.D., as it is generally called …".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1955; Vol. 543. c. 698 and 699.]
We now find, five years later, that the Bank and the Government—indeed, the Governments of both the United Kingdom and the United States—have come round to our point of view. Both in the S.U.N.F.E.D. debates to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Middles brough referred, and in the debates on the International Finance Corporation, we urged this more flexible and broadminded attack on the problem. I am delighted


to see that, whereas the total initial capital of the I.F.C. was then put at 100 million dollars, that of the I.D.A. today is put at 1,000 million dollars, That, at any rate, is a step in the right direction.
We now at last have fully, and internationally, recognised that all these development loans cannot be revenue-earning and that housing, water supply, sanitation and other social amenities are just as essential as the mines and oil wells. The I.D.A. will not merely be following the pioneering work of the Colonial Development Corporation. It will also in some measure follow our own Distribution of Industry Act of 1945 and following years.
The House will remember that in the first Distribution of Industry Act, passed in 1945, in assisting our own underdeveloped areas Government finance as well as private finance was brought in very much on the same basis, strangely enough—perhaps I am not accurate in saying "strangely enough"—as the hon. Gentleman asks us to do today. Indeed, special help was provided there for these very same basic services of housing, water supply, roads, and so on. In that sense, it can be said that the I.D.A. will not be merely an international I.D.C., but is to be an international D.A.T.A.C. as well.
We found them, in dealing with our own underdeveloped areas, precisely what the Colonial Office found in the case of the Colonial Empire—this was the origin of the C.D. and W. as well— that, when dealing with these basic services, it is not merely loans, but grants also, which will be needed. Indeed, as a mere piece of finance or economics, that is just as true internationally as it is of our underdeveloped colonial areas or as it was of the less-developed districts of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, I hope that it will not be another five years before the Government and the International Bank realise this, too, and come along with a plan for an international C. D. and W., also. I hope that we shall have to wait for only two or three years before we reach the next stage.
There is one point about Schedule A, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in the I.D.A. Articles of Agreement which seems to me to call for slight

criticism. That is the absurdly small contribution by Germany to the joint enterprise: The Economic Secretary said —and these were his exact words—that the contributions shown in Schedule A in the last page of the White Paper "were relative to the various countries' economic positions." But if we look at the figures, we find that the United Kingdom's initial contribution is 131 million dollars and Germany's is only 53 million dollars. Surely, not by any test of population, of national income, of gold reserves, of savings, or of exports oan our ability to subscribe to this enterprise be regarded as two and a half times as great as Germany's is today.
It seems to be a perfectly ridiculous and indefensible ratio. I could compare the German quota with that of some other countries in Europe and, I think, sustain the same argument. I hope that the Economic Secretary or, perhaps, the Foreign Secretary will take whatever action is necessary to make clear to the German Government that it really is time that they made their due contribution to present international economic efforts.
With that qualification, I think that we can all generally bless the Bill and this scheme for an International Development Association—as far as they go. We on this side, however, still believe that the effort is not yet measuring up to the present colossal need there is in the world, and we regard this plan as only one more, partial step forward to the real world campaign against want that we desire to see.

8.30 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary earlier gave the House a fairly detailed description of the objects and character of the International Development Association, for the United Kingdom contribution to which the Bill we are discussing makes provision. Since then, we have had a fairly wide-ranging debate, and I will do my best to answer at least some of the questions and points that have been put to me.
On the whole, this has been a warmhearted debate; the House feeling strongly the importance, not only from the political, but from the human point of view, of making progress in this field.


There was much in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) with which I agreed, and I am sure that that was true of the House in general. But I thought that one remark of his fell below the general level of what he had to say.
The right hon. Gentleman was talking about his desire to see a much greater contribution made by the United Kingdom to this problem of development overseas, and said—and I think that I took down his words accurately—"We wish it was much larger." He added, "It could be, without really hurting our people at all." I do not think that it is right to pretend to our people, or to anyone else, that the provision of substantial sums of finance by loan or grant, or by other means of investment, public or private, can necessarily be achieved without making some sacrifices in current consumption in the United Kingdom.
For the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that we can very substantially increase the very large contribution we are already making without asking for some sacrifices from the people of the United Kingdom, is not treating them with the frankness they deserve.

Mr. Jay: In justice to my right hon. Friend, who is not here at the moment, surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is possible to cause inconvenience or, indeed, sacrifice, to people without necessarily hurting them, which was, I think, the word used by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alport: I think that the House would feel that that was a play on words. In my own mind, at any rate, I was quite clear about what the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend meant.
It is also important to remember that the United Kingdom's ability to make an effective contribution depends primarily upon the soundness of our own domestic policies in the realm of economics and finance, and upon the strength of our balance-of-payments position. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the reduction in Government assistance overseas that took place in 1952–53 and 1953–54. I have no doubt that one factor that con-

tributed to that reduction was the difficult financial situation with which we were faced when we came into power in 1951, after the Socialist Government left office at a time of crisis.
A number of important points have been made in this debate, and I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider further the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Hopkins) about the provision of some system of guarantees for overseas private investment.
I should like to say, however, that there are difficulties in connection with this. The real difficulty, and I think it is borne out by the working of the American scheme, is that of providing guarantees against the real risks which are attendant upon investment overseas. Although it might be possible, I suppose, and indeed has been done in the case of the United States, to guarantee against such things as devaluation of the currency, in the majority of cases these are not the problems, difficulties and dangers which affect the judgment of privat investors in overseas countries.
The second thing—and I think that this is important to remember—is that no system of guarantees can take the place of sound and fair treatment of foreign investment by overseas Governments themselves. We would be making a grave mistake if we assumed that it was possible that some action taken by the United Kingdom Government, some risks borne at the expense of the United Kingdom Government, would make good the unwisdom or the unfairness of treatment of foreign investors by other Governments elsewhere.
The third thing, and this, also, should be remembered, is that we in this country, unlike the United States and unlike a great many other countries, have a long standing tradition of investment overseas in what are today called the underdeveloped parts of the world, with which we have been associated, politically and otherwise, for a very long time. Therefore, there is a much more natural flow of investment from this country to those parts of the world than there is with many of the other countries concerned.
So far as the establishment of a code for the treatment of foreign investment is concerned, there are many arguments, I fully recognise, in favour of such a development. At present, the O.E.E.C. Is examining the various laws which apply to overseas investment in various countries, thereby providing the basic material which is necessary before progress can be fully undertaken in this field. Again, it is an important suggestion, and I know it is one which commends itself to certain of our friends in the Commonwealth, particularly the Government of Malaya.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asked me if I would let him and the House know what was the basis of definition for under-developed countries in the White Paper which we issued with regard to Government assistance. The White Paper took the usual United Nations definition of underdeveloped countries, and added certain European countries to it for the purpose of this White Paper. I think that the definition is one which is genuinely recognised as a fair one in the circumstances.

Mr. Jay: Would the Minister say which were the European countries which were added?

Mr. Alport: Yugoslavia, Turkey, Malta and Cyprus were some of the countries added. The United Nations definition is North and South America, less the United States and Canada, Africa, less the Union of South Africa, Asia, less Japan, and Oceania, less Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Oram: In paragraph 42 of the White Paper, which has been talked about a good deal, referring to the 1¼ per cent. the phrase is "less developed countries." Do we take it that that definition he is now giving applies, or is there a difference?

Mr. Alport: No, there is no difference.
The right hon. Gentleman also tried to make a special point of the fact that a certain proportion of private investment has taken place in the development of the oil industry. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, during the period when his own party was in power, there was substantial investment in that field

at that time. What is more, he will recognise that investment in the development of oil is precisely the sort of investment which the Governments of the under-developed countries regard as being most important for their own economic development.
To suppose that we are undertaking this kind of investment without their wish merely in our own interests is quite wrong. It is, of course, a valuable investment for the United Kingdom, but it is also an extremely valuable investment for countries like India, Pakistan and countries of the Middle East in providing them with a rich new source of revenue and wealth for the development of their own resources.

Mr. Jay: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I entirely agree with all that, and, indeed, I said it. The point I made was that, by its nature, apart from refineries, it could take place only in oil-bearing areas.

Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is an increasing number of countries which are finding that oil resources are available to them to an extent greater than hitherto believed.
I am sure that, at any rate, my hon. Friends will have heard and will study with interest the speech of both right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have taken part in the debate. I found it a fascinating exercise to watch their application of the new testament of their party to overseas lending and investment. From the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East we had a slightly self-conscious doffing of the hat to private enterprise and then a perfunctory pouring of a libation or two upon the old altars of the gods of nationalisation and the public sector.
Things were going fairly well along those lines, and we felt that the "new look" of the party was gradually becoming established when, suddenly, the "old Adam" appeared in the person of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies).

Mr. Harold Davies: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the "new testament" and the "old Adam". I must remind him that there is also the apocrypha. If he knows his Greek, he will know that


"apocrypha" means "hidden meanings". It was the hidden meanings in all this that I was looking at.

Mr. Alport: Hon. Members who heard the hon. Gentleman's speech will fully recognise its apocryphal qualities, and no doubt, there were hidden meanings existing within it.
It is not fair for the right hon. Member for Battersea, North to suggest that private enterprise has made a relatively minor contribution during recent years to investment overseas. Let us take the example of India. Non-banking private investment from the United Kingdom in India has more than doubled since 1948 and, at the end of 1957, it represented over 70 per cent. of all the private non-banking investment in India. That is an extremely important contribution to the progress of a great country. We are, surely wrong, whatever our political point of view, to underestimate the importance of such a contribution in raising standards of living and developing the resources of the countries concerned.
If I may say so, I very much enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram). I am sure that the House will agree when I say that we wish that more of our colleagues who have the opportunity of going overseas, particularly to Commonwealth countries, would use the knowledge and experience they gain on those occasions to enrich and inform our debates as the hon. Gentleman did, with particular reference to the small but nevertheless important territory which he had principally in mind. It is always very acceptable to the House, I think, to have such first-hand information given to it.
It is important for hon. Members on both sides of the House not unduly and unfairly to depreciate the contribution which the United Kingdom has made and is making today towards the improvement of the standards of living of the less-developed countries of the world. The figures have already been put before the House in earlier speeches and they are available in the Government's White Paper.
Take what is in some ways a key figure, namely, the increase between 1952–53 and 1959–60 of Government assistance from £49 million to £138 million. One of the main reasons for this increase was the introduction by my right

hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the Montreal Conference, 1958, of the new system of Commonwealth assistance loans. As I have said, we believe that private investment overseas has a continuing major role to play in development finance.
At the same time, we fully recognise the need for what I think the Prime Minister of India once called the purposeful direction of financial aid in the direction of those countries which, for one reason or another, have difficulty in attracting investment from private sources. Alternatively, they may, as is the case of India, be engaged in certain major projects of primary development which have long-term importance and produce, as a result, a relatively limited return.
The Commonwealth assistance loans have been of the greatest importance in connection with the United Kingdom's contribution to the financing of India's second five-year plan. Since they were instituted they have been made available to four other Commonwealth countries which are either full members of the Commonwealth or are on the threshold of independence. I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree that, when Malayan independence was granted, we made a very substantial contribution over the ensuing years to assist the financial strength of Malaya.
We have already allocated to Nigeria, as a Commonwealth assistance loan after independence, the substantial sum of £12 million to help it through what we recognise may well be the difficult early days of independence. It is, therefore, not true to suppose that we have ceased to take a practical and effective interest in the financial problems of countries simply because they have become independent.
The House will realise that the moneys which are to be made available by the I.D.A. will be loans for which interest rates and repayment terms are to be as fair as possible and tempered to the particular circumstances of the borrowing government. But I think that it should be remembered that, of the £138 million provided by the United Kingdom for the year 1959–60, nearly £40 million took the form of grants to Commonwealth countries and foreign countries


which required neither interest nor repayment.
I fully accept—and our practice shows that this is the case—the importance of the grant to ensure that we do not overburden a country which is struggling towards development, with large capital charges and a large obligation to repay the loan over a period of time. This £138 million was, as I say, provided by the United Kingdom Exchequer partly in the form of loans and partly in the form of grants. Private investment in less-developed countries overseas amounted to about £100 million during the last year.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, by some mathematical magic which I was not able entirely to follow, seemed to reduce that sum by 30 or 33 per cent., but I would remind him that paragraph 7 of the White Paper states:
 this "—
that is, the £100 million—
includes some reinvestment of locally earned profits but information about such reinvestment is incomplete and the figure of £100 million may be too low.
We have given what we believe to be a conservative figure in relation to this investment, and I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman is justified in trying to reduce it further.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Member saying that that figure is the figure for net investment?

Mr. Alport: I am not saying that it is the figure for net investment. It is the best figure that we can present. We fully recognise that the new investment which is taking place is not complete, because it does not include all the reinvestment of profits which have taken place during the year.

Mr. Jay: If the Minister wants to argue about the figures, may I say that I was merely quoting the footnote on page 6 of his own White Paper, Cmnd. 974, which tells us that the net figure for private investment overseas is £200 million compared with £300 million gross. I was simply arguing from that. There is no mystery about it.

Mr. Alport: I tried to deal with that in an intervention. The right hon. Gentleman may be trying to prove that it is a

percentage—that it is two-thirds of £100 million—but all that I am saying is that the £100 million does not exhaust the total amount of private investment undertaken during the last year.
It is not my purpose to contrast our United Kingdom contribution to the development of overseas countries which are underdeveloped with those of other countries. I think that was done admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet). We recognise—I think that it is fair that we should do so—that we have special responsibilities in territories overseas that are dependent on us, as well as for assistance to our friends in the Commonwealth. It should, however, not be forgotten that, quite apart from this substantial bilateral assistance which we are giving, we are making a contribution to countries outside the Commonwealth through the International Bank and the United Nations, as well as, in some cases, providing bilateral assistance to foreign countries, such as Jordan, the Sudan, Turkey and Libya with whom we have close and friendly relations.
We recognise that the obligation which falls on the shoulders of countries such as ours, which are heavily industrialised and enjoy a very high standard of living, is a particularly heavy one, and it is to try to share our advantages with those who are less well placed.
We do not regard ourselves as in competition with countries behind the Iron Curtain. It is sometimes argued that provision of aid of this kind is a major means of countering the expansion of Communism. I have no doubt that in some respects that is true, but I should be sorry to think that anyone should assume that our motive in undertaking this present programme of assistance is derived from such a narrow point of view.
Ideas on how the economic progress of less-developed countries can best be promoted have changed radically over the years. We in this country were playing a part in the development of new lands long before Communism appeared on the political horizon, and what we are doing today, we believe, is simply a continuation of earlier policies designed to create higher standards of living and the development of natural resources in diverse parts of the world.


policies which we have pursued for at least one and a half centuries.
We do not always get much credit for our contribution. Very often we have been and are accused of exploitation. I was touched very much when I was in India, earlier this year, by something that a very distinguished Indian and a great figure in the Congress movement said to me. He said, "In the old days we always assumed that Britain's wealth was achieved by the exploitation of the resources and people of my country, but now we realise that thirteen years after the British left India the wealth and standard of living of your country is greater than it ever was when you were ruling us."
I am not claiming that we do not derive advantage from the increasing standard of living of countries overseas, but it is certain that we do not derive that benefit alone. Economic progress in the less-developed countries must be of advantage to the trading nations everywhere, and it is on the realisation of this truth that our policies in the past have to some extent depended.
I should like to turn to the question, which has been raised by some of my hon. Friends during the debate, of why we have agreed to become members of the I.D.A. rather than sought to promote a Commonwealth development association of its own. I have already reminded the House of the extent of the financial contribution made by this country on a Commonwealth basis. We have ready at hand the Commonwealth assistance loans, the colonial loans and grants, the colonial development and welfare funds, C.D.C., C.D.F.C. and the London Market and in them a large and varied number of instruments which, we believe, are particularly suited to the needs of Commonwealth development finance.
Although the Commonwealth contribution to the I.D.A. undoubtedly represents the provision of additional money for the purposes of development, the amount forthcoming from Commonwealth sources represents only about one-quarter of the total convertible currency which the I.D.A. will have at its disposal. Consequently, the total new investment resources which the I.D.A. will have available is considerably more than could be provided from Commonwealth sources alone. We hope and believe that the less-developed parts of

the Commonwealth will receive a fair share of this assistance, but we also fully recognise the prestige and experience in development finance which the International Bank brings to this new organisation of the I.D.A.
As right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, have fully acknowledged, over recent years the Bank has played an extremely important part in the development of the underdeveloped parts of the world. In recent months, it has helped to complete the negotiations to provide the finance for the Indus waters scheme. It helped with the creation of the financial consortium eighteen months ago to assist India with her second five-year plan and, on a smaller scale, we are indebted to the Bank for the help which was given in the recent Economic Survey of the High Commission Territories.
In these circumstances, the Bank's services can be of particular value and, perhaps, as some hon. Members have said, can achieve results which would not be nearly so easy in any other way. In the case of the I.D.A., it is proposed that Mr. Black and his colleagues and the staff of the Bank should be responsible for the administration of its funds, thereby ensuring that the I.D.A. is able to have at its disposal their experience and "know-how", at the same time frustrating, on this occasion at least, the normal operations of what I understand to be Parkinson's first law.
Reference has also been made to S.U.N.F.E.D. and the Special Fund. We recognise the value, which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East pointed out, of the research and pilot work of the Special Fund. Concerning the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development, however, there are certain strong arguments in favour of the decision which we have taken in relation to the I.D.A. I have referred to the importance of having available the services of Mr. Black and staff of the International Bank, but there are other considerations, too.
In the first place, it will be possible for us to ensure that the money that will be available for this development is in the form of convertible currency.
It has been the established practice of the Soviet bloc to make its contributions in this field in unconvertible currency. Those projects financed from Soviet bloc


sources would be likely to be tied to Soviet production. This is not fair, because, on the one hand, Soviet production would have the benefit of Soviet bloc contributions to S.U.N.F.E.D. and, at the same time, it would be able to compete on equal terms with other contributors for the projects financed by their contributions. For these reasons, I think that the House would agree that it is valuable and right that we should give our support and contribution to the International Development Association. At the same time, we recognise the value of the work which is done by the United Nations in this field.

Mr. Marquand: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Soviet bloc has specifically stated that on no account whatsoever would it subscribe to S.U.N.F.E.D. in convertible currencies?

Mr. Alport: No. That has been its practice up to now.
There is one further point which has been touched upon by two of my hon. Friends. This is that any investment will be of value only in so far as it can be matched by technical assistance, by the provision of technical and skilled manpower to make sure that the money expended is expended in the most effective and up-to-date way, to achieve full value for the money in the interests of the development in the countries concerned. We must, therefore, always bear in mind that a contribution of this sort to any international organisation, or through our own resources, is not sufficient. We must also make a continuing effort to play our part in the provision of technical assistance on an increasing scale.
As I said earlier, we have had a wide-ranging debate. I hope and believe that the House will pass the Bill on Second

Reading without a Division and will consequently facilitate its speedy passage. The United Kingdom is already playing a leading part in providing the resources which are necessary to combat the evils of hunger, poverty, ignorance and ill-health in many parts of the world. The Bill will add a further weapon to the armoury which the free nations have at their disposal.
I am quite clear that the House will wish us to take a leading part in this new initiative. At the same time, we must recognise that from the point of view of the Commonwealth, and indeed of our allies as a whole, we must not overstrain our resources and thus weaken sterling as a major trading currency in the world. We must, therefore, be continually balancing our policies or maintaining confidence in sterling with our continuing desire to have an active and increasing part in the improvement of the standards of living in Commonwealth countries and elsewhere by means of overseas lending and grants.
After careful consideration, Her Majesty's Government feel that they can and must make the contribution which membership of I.D.A. imposes upon us and we recognise—and it is right that we should say it—that this places on the people of our country a further obligation to sacrifice, in addition to the others which they have already undertaken in assisting in development overseas. Nevertheless, we believe that such sacrifices will be willingly undertaken as a contribution by our country to the increasing happiness and prosperity of peoples everywhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 {Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to an international agreement for the establishment and operation of an International Development Association, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government under the said agreement;
(b) the raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be so paid or for replacing sums so paid;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer, and re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums received by Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of the said agreement;
(d) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable under any notes or other obligations created and issued to the said Association under the said agreement.—[Mr. Barber.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FATSTOCK RECORDS)

9.5 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 293), dated 22nd February, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
This is a straightforward Order which re-enacts, with certain amendments, Article 6 of the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958. That Article related to records, and its replacement has become necessary because of the making of the Movement of Animals (Records) Order, 1960.
The House may recall that when I introduced the original Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order on 25th June, 1958, I said that some inspection of records was essential for the proper safeguarding of the guarantees; that the disbursements of large sums of public money imposed some obligations on the recipients; but that at the same time we did not expect to impose any onerous burden of additional work. Those remarks still apply today. People engaged in the livestock industry are required to keep records of the movement of animals for the necessary purpose of safeguarding animal health. These records of movement can prove most useful as a means of substantiating the transfer of livestock from one person to another, and in the original Order we secured the right to inspect these records, if need be, for the purposes of the fatstock guarantees.
At the time the original Order was made, the animal health movement records were required under the Movement of Animals (Records) Order of 1925. From 1st March this Order was replaced by the Movement of Animals (Records) Order, 1960. I think I explained the reasons for that at the time. We are re-enacting the provision in the Fatstock Order with a similar reference to the new movement Order. At the same time we are making two small extensions.
First, similar provision is made to obtain the right to inspect registers kept under the Swine Fever Order, 1938. This


is needed because movements of pigs entered in these registers do not have to be recorded under the movement Order. We are also providing for the right to inspect in Northern Ireland very similar movement records which have to be kept under a Northern Ireland Government Order—the Transit of Animals (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1941.
I commend this Order to the House. It provides a valuable supporting measure for the safeguard of public money paid out in fatstock guarantees, and I am pleased to say that it does this without imposing any extra work of record keeping on anyone.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We accept this Order. We accept the reason for it. It might seem that the extension of it to the Swine Fever Order, 1938, would be an implicit reflection upon past administrations of different political colour, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to be unduly disturbed about that. Therefore, we accept the reasons he has given for the extension of the Order to cover that as well.

9.10 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: How long do the records have to be kept? It is not clear from the Order —though it may be in one of the others —how long they have to be kept. Secondly, in what form do they have to be kept? Under the movement orders, we always kept a pink form, and I had always thought that those forms had to be kept for a year. It is not clear from the Order what exactly has to be kept. If it is to be a stock book and not a pink order, then I cannot understand it, because every farm has a stock book and keeps in it the records of the animals

there, the animals brought in, the dates of sale, and so on.
My third question, which is allied to that, is whether in future we have to have a movement order in respect of animals going to slaughter. In the stock book that would be recorded, but up to now it has not been necessary to have a pink form, a movement order, for animals going to slaughter.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for the reception he gave to this Order. I am glad to know that the Opposition is with us in this matter—at least in spirit if not in person.
The first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) was about the period of time for which these records have to be kept. The answer is that it is three years for cattle but one year for other stock.
This Order merely deals with the right to inspect. An Order we dealt with previously dealt with the other provisions. All we are doing here is to give ourselves the right to inspect records which were laid down as being necessary for other purposes. All we are doing is taking the right to go and inspect them.
We are not changing in any way the existing form. It is the stock book to which we shall usually refer in regard to these matters. These are the records which are kept for the purposes I have enumerated. All we are doing is saying we have a right to go and inspect them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 293), dated 22nd February, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FATSTOCK GUARANTEES)

9.13 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 428), dated 15th March, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
This Order is designed to provide cover for the fatstock guarantees from the beginning of the fatstock guarantee year 1960–61 on 28th March. It replaces, with certain differences, an Order which has covered these guarantees since March, 1957.
The most important difference concerns the new way of treating the special payments on the quality premium grades of pigs about which my right hon. Friend told the House in his statement on the Annual Review.
The old Order enabled us to pay quality premiums, but they had to be part of the overall guarantee on all pigs. This had the effect of reducing the guarantee payments on all pigs. Also under the old arrangement, the payment of the premiums could not have continued if at any time the level of overall average market prices rose above the guaranteed price. Although in the past it was never necessary to reduce or discontinue the premiums on this account, the possibility was a source of concern to the producers of quality bacon pigs who felt, with some justification, that, if quality merited a premium, it did so no matter what might happen to the level of market prices.
The new Order enables us to assure the producer of quality premium grade pigs an enhanced return under all circumstances and at the same time to divorce the premium from the basic guarantee calculations. The result of this will be that the basic guarantee rates will no longer be reduced to finance the premiums, and the premiums can always be paid on eligible pigs of the appropriate quality.
The remaining changes in the Order are all of a subsidiary nature, and they will have little practical effect on the producer.
We are going to apply the feed formula adjustment for pigs to the guaranteed price instead of to the rates of payment. This makes no difference in general, but it has certain advantages from the point of view of making the calculations. We have altered the definition of the guarantee year so that there will be a better fit with the accounting year, and we have made provision for the rounding of payments to suitable currency units.
The old Order was made under the provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and it continued under the 1957 Act. The latter Act was phrased in rather a different way, and the opportunity has been taken to reword a number of the provisions in the Order to accord with the phraseology of the Act.
This Order is concerned with methods and procedure. I am sure that the steps to which it gives effect will be welcomed by producers generally. It is the necessary outcome to the decisions which my right hon. Friend announced and which were warmly welcomed.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: There is a lot I should like to say about pigs, but I realise that I am not allowed to do so in a debate on this Order. I recognise that it is a procedural Order and that the debate must be limited. But the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned the feedingstuffs formula and has said that the change made in the Order will be of little practical effect. I take this opportunity of telling him that the reply he recently gave me on the subject was quite inadequate. There is one point to which he should direct his attention. He should consider whether it is possible to relate the formula to retail prices. That was the point I had in mind. I have now had the opportunity to bring it to his notice. He might also consider the incidence of tariffs on feeding-stuffs.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Oh.

Mr. Willey: I do not wish to pursue the matter further.
This Order affects the stabilising band, which we know has been altered from 3s. to 2s. 3d., and everyone welcomes that. But I doubt whether the Government


are going far enough. Between now and the next Price Review I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider what steps he can take to underwrite the long-term contracts. I know that the purpose of this Order is to facilitate those contracts, but I hope he will consider going even further.
As he said, the main point of the Order is to improve the position in connection with the quality premiums—to separate them from the standard price— and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House welcome this. But I have some doubts about the estimate made in the White Paper as to the effect of this provision. I say this because I was given some figures before the Price Review, and I should have thought that the White Paper was rather optimistic in this matter.
We accept the Order as a good thing. It will help the industry. Nevertheless, it by no means goes as far as the producers wanted the Minister to go. They were asking for separate guarantees, and whatever may be the views of the Parliamentary Secretary the industry feels that this Order is inadequate.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government will give serious consideration to the pig industry, both in relation to marketing and to further support.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I only want to say that what has been done in the Order to improve the position of the quality premium is what I hoped the Government would do. I therefore thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

9.21 p.m.

Sir Anthony Hurd: I hope that my hon. Friend will be more explicit about the purpose of separating the quality premium on bacon pigs from the normal guarantee. Is this part of the encouragement to be given to long-term contracts between bacon pig producers and bacon curers? I hope it is. Will my hon. Friend say a word about how he thinks this will work out in practice?
I endorse what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said about the confusing nature of Article 7

in ascertaining the price of feedingstuffs, because it says:
… such price to be ascertained by reference to the prices of the basic feedingstuffs during such period as may be determined by the Minister.
Most of us who meet farmers and discuss pig prices, which are in part related to the cost of feedingstuffs, are told that the prices ascertained by the Ministry do not relate to the prices which they have to pay. We know that these are pork prices and that they are an indication of the trend of prices from month to month on which the guarantees are based. Would it not be possible to bring them into closer relationship with what the farmer pays for his feedingstuffs both for poultry and pigs? I hope the Minister will look at that point before he has to give us another Order.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Many farmers in my constituency, notably those organised in the National Farmers' Union, are pretty irate with Her Majesty's Government about the Annual Price Review settlement. I want to ask my hon. Friend a couple of questions on this Order. First, the cost of guarantees for pigs. The cost for pigs in the year 1959–60 is £21·3 million. Is that an agreed settlement with the National Farmers' Union, notwithstanding that the whole of the Price Review and settlement was not agreed? I have heard it murmured by the National Farmers' Union and others that the pig settlement was agreed. I should like to know whether that is so.
Secondly, is it intended in future to separate guarantees between bacon pigs and pork pigs, and are the contents of this Order an indication of what is to come?

Mr. Speaker: I am dreadfully sorry, but I do not understand what Order the hon. Member is talking about. Unless I was out of the Chair and missed something, it seems to be some Order relating to fatstock.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Have I misunderstood?

Mr. Nabarro: The Explanatory Note says in paragraph (b):
The feed formula adjustment for guaranteed payments on pigs is applied to the guaranteed price instead of to the rates of guaranteed payment.


I would have thought, therefore, that under the Order we are debating, which I understood to be the Fatstock (Guaranteed Payments) Order, 1960, both the questions I put to the Parliamentary Secretary were strictly in order.

Mr. Speaker: Unless I misapprehend the matter, there is nothing in this except machinery. It is a machinery Order, and it is very difficult to attach what the hon. Member is saying to the process of the machinery Order. I am sorry.

Mr. Nabarro: I wanted to ask a couple of questions about fat pigs.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can ask them if they are in order, but he must assist me by trying to bring this matter into order.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was being frightfully helpful in the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to both those points because my farmers are pretty fed up with him. I hope he will not be under any misapprehension about that. They are fed up about fat pigs.

Mr. Speaker: The fact that farmers are fed up does not bring within order a matter which is out of order anyway.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I wish to ask my hon. Friend a question about the fatstock guarantee as it affects fat cattle. It is the practice to grade fat cattle at live weight in two grades, both heifers and steers. I notice that it often happens that at the auction sale the Grade II cattle often make the biggest price. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is satisfied that this classification of cattle is necessary and if so, whether those grades are founded on some commercial distinctions on which butchers and others in the market are prepared to pay.
If in the long run it proves to be the case that Grade II cattle make more than cattle in Grade I, there does not seem to be any point in maintaining the differentiation between the two grades. I wonder whether any check is made from time to time on the market realisation prices of the two grades for the purpose of comparison to ascertain whether there is any commercial difference between them.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I will reply briefly to one or two points which have been raised, but I will endeavour not to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) too far.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not mind so long as my hon. Friend answers my questions.

Mr. Godber: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await my reply.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to the way in which the feedingstuffs formula is worked and suggested that we should relate this to retail prices. It is a matter which has been suggested from time to time, and we have looked at it on various occasions. But I think it will be found that over any period of time the system which we have works fairly as between the producers and the Government. I do not think that any case has been made out for amending it. These are matters which are subject to discussions with the N.F.U.'s from time to time, and I think that the present system works well. While I am willing to look again at these problems, I do not think any case has been made out to prove that it is unfair to the producers.
The hon. Member suggested that what we are doing, in particular in relation to pigs, was inadequate to secure the purposes which we wished to secure. That was the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster was seeking to embellish. In relation to pigs we have done a great deal to meet the requests made to us over the last six months. My right hon. Friend has given immense thought to this problem. He has taken three measures designed to help particularly the bacon pig producer and to encourage those long-term contracts which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd). He has put up the guaranteed price; he has separated the quality premiums as set out in this Order and taken them out of the guarantee, which means that they will be paid automatically for all pigs qualifying, whatever the state of the market.
It also means, in effect, an increase in the price of the pigs. In the guarantee it was equivalent to a profit of about 6d. a score for all pigs, and that is added to the increase given.
The third point is the narrower stabilising limits. All that is directed to assisting to provide stability and security for pig producers and especially for the specialist bacon pig producer.
My right hon. Friend is convinced—this is in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury—that this will help to facilitate long-term contracts. It is my right hon. Friend's hope that we shall be seeing some very definite proposals coming forward in the near future. One bacon factory I know of has already offered long-term contracts based on these new arrangements. They will help the specialist pig producer to go ahead in confidence, and I think they will be warmly welcomed.
I am very surprised that farmers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster are unhappy about what we have done in relation to pigs in this Review. Whatever they may say about any other commodity, I think what we have done in relation to pigs has had a warm reception. I hope my hon. Friend will refresh his contact with farmers about pigs.

Mr. Nabarro: What about the agreed statement?

Mr. Godber: All I can say about the agreed statement is that it is never customary to disclose these discussions, apart from saying whether, in fact, in the Price Review a determination was agreed or not. As it is known, they were not agreed, but it would be breaking confidence to go further than that. I have indicated that I believe what we have done in relation to pigs is fair and is accepted as being fair throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Billiard) asked an interesting question about fat cattle and said that on occasion second-grade cattle sold for a higher price than top-grade cattle. I suppose that as these decisions are taken by human beings and we are all apt to err on occasion, there may be times when judgment is incorrect. I am sure that he is aware there are occasions when in a show the animal which takes first prize does not make the highest price at the sale which follows. Taking the country as a whole, however, on the records

which we keep—and we keep clear records—there is a very definite premium in price in favour of Grade I cattle as opposed to Grade II cattle. While I should be happy to look into any case which my hon. Friend brings to me, I have no reason to belive that this system is not working satisfactorily.
With these answers to the questions which have been asked, I hope the House will be willing now to approve the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 428), dated 15th March, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (EGG PRICES)

9.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 427), dated 15th March 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
This order, made under Section 1 of the Agriculture Act, 1957, gives effect to changes in the arrangements for providing guaranteed prices and an assured market for eggs through the British Egg Marketing Board. It amends the principal Order—the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1957—and comes into operation on 3rd April, the beginning of the new egg guarantee year.
The arrangements for implementing the guarantee for eggs through the British Egg Marketing Board have been operating for nearly three years. It is not surprising that experience has revealed certain defects which have prevented the guarantee system from working as smoothly and effectively as we should have wished. After full discussion of these difficulties with the farmers' unions and the Board, we have arrived at an agreed solution which was announced in the White Paper on the Annual Review and is given statutory force under this Order.
To explain the significance of the new Order, I may perhaps remind the House very briefly of the arrangements as they have applied during the past three years.


They provide, of course, for the guarantee to be implemented through the British Egg Marketing Board, which receives subsidy payments from the Government and is responsible for fixing prices to producers. The 1957 Order lays down the procedure to be followed each year in determining what payments are due from the Exchequer to the Board in the light of the Annual Review.
Ministers are required to determine, for hen and duck eggs respectively (a) a guaranteed price per dozen for eggs of prescribed quality; (b) an estimate of the average wholesale selling price per dozen for the guarantee year; and (c) a rate of subsidy—which is the difference between the guaranteed price to the Board and the estimated average selling price.
The Board is then paid the flat rate of subsidy on each dozen eggs qualifying for the guarantee. I should perhaps explain that since 1958 the estimated price used has been fixed on a conventional basis. It is the weighted average of the prices realised by the Board for the two preceding years, a double weighting being given to the second year—that is, the most recent year.
In addition, the existing arrangements provide an incentive for the Board to get the best out of the market. This is effected through adjustments in the flat rate of subsidy. When the Board realises less than the estimated price in any year, it bears in full the first 2d. of the loss. Beyond 2d., the Board bears 10 per cent. of the loss and the Government 90 per cent. When the Board realises more than the estimated price, it keeps the whole of the first 2d. of the profit and half of any remaining profit. The other half accrues to the Exchequer.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Godber: It is a complicated matter, but I am glad to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has followed it so far. If he will listen, he will perhaps follow the next bit.
Experience has shown that these profit and loss sharing arrangements were open to two main criticisms. First, producers' returns were subject to unduly wide and erratic fluctuations from year to year. Secondly, the effect of determinations

made by Ministers following the Annual Review have tended to be blurred by the effect of fluctuations arising from these profit and loss sharing arrangements. For instance, although the guaranteed price to the Board was cut by l¾d. per dozen, following the 1958 Annual Review, this was almost exactly offset by a profit of 1.7d. secured by the Board. Again, the guaranteed price was reduced by only 1d. per dozen at the 1959 Review, whereas producers have, in fact, received about 5d. per dozen less this year than in the previous year. About 4d. of this difference is due to the effect of the profit and loss sharing arrangements.
The amending Order is designed to remedy these weaknesses. I should like to draw particular attention to the following features. First, the so-called 2d. bands are abolished and all profits and all losses are shared between the Board and the Government. Secondly, the respective shares of the Government and the Board have been adjusted so that the value of the guarantee remains unaffected by the change so far as can be estimated.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend said that the value of the guarantee will remain the same. Appendix V of the White Paper shows an increase of £2·8 million.

Mr. Godber: I should like to look at the figure quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do not think that it arises in relation to this aspect. I will certainly be glad to look into it.
I was saying that, as far as we can estimate, the value remains unaffected. Thirdly, provision is made for the introduction of a reserve fund, with the object of smoothing out fluctuations in annual returns still further.
It will be seen that under the new Article 7 profits are shared initially on the basis of 75 per cent. for the Board and 25 per cent. for the Government. Provision is made, however, for the Board to pay 30 per cent. of total profits into a reserve fund. Subject to these reserve arrangements, losses up to 6d. are shared as to 40 per cent. by the Board and 60 per cent. by the Government. The Government will continue to bear 90 per cent. of losses in excess of 6d. It is intended to use the reserve


funds towards meeting losses that may be incurred, and the detailed arrangements will be embodied in an agreement between the Government and the Board. A copy of this agreement will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall read it.

Mr. Godber: We believe that the changes which are being introduced in the coming year will bring about a greater measure of stability in returns to producers from year to year. I apologise for the complicated nature of this arrangement. I thought that it was necessary to draw it to the attention of the House so that hon. Members will see exactly how it works out.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: As hon. Members will have gathered from the title of the Order, we are discussing eggs. We are discussing a short, simple Order, and any hon. Members who have had difficulty in following the Joint Parliamentary Secretary are advised to look at the Order.
The reason for the Order is set out quite simply in the White Paper. Paragraph 24 says:
Experience in the past three years of the working of the profit and loss sharing arrangements between the Government and the British Egg Marketing Board has shown that they may result in unduly large and erratic fluctuations in producers' prices from year to year. This has disadvantages for both producers and the Government.
That is a mild understatement. What I am particularly sore about is that three years ago I anticipated all this. When we discussed the egg marketing scheme this was just the sort of thing I anticipated, and I want to know why the Government have not done something earlier.
As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) knows well, we are discussing a commodity that has a very substantial Treasury subsidy—now running at £36½ million. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that this matter usually has the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but it is something that affects not only the taxpayer but the producer.
In passing, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary how he lightly refers to

last year's fall of 5d. in the price and then tells producers that they have the assurance of the 1957 Act. This is another matter that I anticipated. When we discussed the 1957 Act, I said that it gave no real assurance at all to the producer if the Government played ducks and drakes with the formula by which the guarantee is implemented. That is what we have here.
We are now facing this further difficulty—and I plead with the Minister and with the Parliamentary Secretary to avoid equivocation. It has been the object of the Minister over the last few years, and now for the current year, to reduce egg production, and the disincentive has been a price disincentive. When we debated the Supplementary Estimate the other day, the Minister advanced the extraordinary argument that, in effect, because of the formula we are now discussing, there would be an increase this year and, as a result, at least a reduction in production. That is nonsense. In fact, it is not true—

Sir James Duncan: An increase in what?

Mr. Willey: The Minister said that as a result of the formula we are now discussing there would, in fact, be an increase in price—

Sir J. Duncan: In price, yes.

Mr. Willey: That is not, in fact, true.
The other day I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a Question, and I got this Answer:
The reduction in the guaranteed price for eggs represents a reduction of £4½ million in the total value of the guarantees as calculated for the purposes of the 1960 Annual Review." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 93.]
We can only make that assumption for present purposes. We do not know how the year will work out; we only know the estimate made about it. I therefore hope that we shall not get any equivocation about it.
I mention these matters because I think that it would be unfortunate if we got a wrong impression about the effect of this Order. It does not affect— and the Government must have the courage to say so—the Government's intention in reducing egg production. They have declared that intention in black and white in the White Paper.


The Order is concerned with something rather different. Its purpose is to weaken the impact of the present price disincentive, and no more than that; and also to avoid these undue fluctuations in future.
The present position could not be worse. We have four successive price returns and, in addition, we have these very wide, erratic fluctuations. I do not accept that this Order will mitigate those fluctuations, or lessen the impact of the Government's purposes. We accept it as an alleviation, but we must at least be cautious in welcoming it, as it in no way restores the confidence of the industry. It is welcome in itself but, at the same time, we should be very forthright in our criticism of the Government and say that it is only against the background of their intention that we accept the Order as some alleviation.
Once again, I say that it really will not do for the hon. Gentleman to come to the House, after three years, and tell us that the Government have now looked at this subject in the light of experience and are trying something they think will work rather better. Many people had a good deal of hesitation about accepting this in the first place. It should have been reviewed earlier.
When we have a very large Treasury subvention to give more confidence and more security to producers, it ill becomes the Government to confess, to use their own words, "unduly large and erratic fluctuations". The whole purpose of the aid for the taxpayers is to avoid that. This is a confession of failure, but, on top of that, we have the Government, for the fourth year running, saying to the industry, "We are determined—the men in Whitehall are determined—to reduce the production of this industry." I would say that it would be far better if we could get some cooperation to try to help this industry to solve its problems, but we have had only this negative approach.
We can say no more, therefore, than that we welcome the Order as far as it goes, we hope that it will work rather better than the previous formula, but we are not satisfied, as some of us said the last time when we were discussing the egg marketing scheme, that the Government have got their support of egg prices right. I hope that this will not only be an alleviation, but a beginning of a more

realistic view of the egg industry by the Government, and that they will endeavour to give this industry the security to which it ought to be entitled.

9.46 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: I should like to add a word or two to the debate on the amending Order before the House, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on bringing this Amendment along. It struck me that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was wishing to have it, not only both ways, but all three ways.
The object of this Order, and of the Government's policy, as I understand it, is not to reduce production, but to stabilise production, which is a very different thing.

Mr. Willey: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper, he will see the words set out expressly—
… production of eggs should be reduced;

Sir R. Nugent: Iit is rather a matter of reducing it marginally until consumption catches up with production again. So far as the assurance to producers is concerned, the hon. Member should take note of the 18 per cent. increase in production that has taken place over the last three years, and in consumption, which has been a very great blessing to the producers. This arrangement has given producers stability of price and a guaranteed price throughout a big expansion. I think my hon Friend can take credit for giving not only stability to producers, but enabling them to make a very big expansion in production at the same time.
I think I would be right in saying that the present price guarantee machinery would, over the long term, say five or ten years, probably average out all right. The main fault, as my hon. Friend said, is that it makes for instability in the short term. Like the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, I had doubts about it when it was introduced, and I know that the Ministry had, too. It is always difficult to get agreement on these things and to take a view into the future. It is very easy to have hindsight now and say that the arrangement would not work. I think that, in the light of experience, my hon. Friend is right to bring in an amending Order which will remove


the worst of the faults, although I think there are one or two more still remaining.
The machinery of the price guarantee is a very great stabilising factor, but it has not been working too well. My hon. Friend called the attention of the House to how the machinery works, and said that the amending Order will remove the "2d. band"—the 2d. above or below the estimated average selling price, which at present accrues to the Board, whether it is a profit or a loss. I entirely agree with him that the effect of this 100 per cent. arrangement has been to exaggerate the high returns of a strong market when this has occurred and to exaggerate the lowering when there has been a weak market, and, therefore, in both the first two years, it has led to too high a price to producers and, in the third year, to too low a price to producers.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in removing that feature and having a straight profit and loss sharing arrangement which comes in immediately there is a difference between the average ascertained selling price and the average estimated selling price. These are the terms which are used, even though they do not seem to mean very much when I use them.
There is another feature about which we should be absolutely clear. My hon. Friend spoke about the reserve fund which would be set up. The present arrangement under the existing scheme is that any funds accruing to the Board due to the so-called profit it has made have to be cleared and paid out by the end of the financial year, 31st March; otherwise, they will attract Income Tax like any other profits. The result has been that the Board, to avoid tax falling on the profits it has made, has paid these moneys out during the spring months which are the glut production months, whereas it would have been far wiser production policy to have that reserve taken out during the scarcity months in order to encourage a bigger production during those months in the future. In the new arrangement, will the reserve fund be taxed or arranged so that the Board can carry it forward from one financial year to another and so avoid that further undesirable feature?
A third point arises with regard to the basis for computing the estimated selling price. One is always adjured not to count one's chickens before they are hatched, but, of course, the Ministry not only has to count the eggs before they are laid but estimate the price they will make at the beginning of the year in order to work the price machinery. My hon. Friend told us that the estimated selling price for the coming year was to be computed on the basis of the previous two years with double weighting for the last previous year.
In my judgment, this is still a factor leading to instability. It is too short a period over which to compute the price. For instance, last year there was a low average ascertained selling price, and therefore the effect will be that the estimated average selling price for the coming year may be set too low again because of the distorting effect of the previous year. It would be far better to compute the estimated selling price for the coming year by reference to the previous five years, or any longer period my hon. Friend prefers, rather than just two years, which is too short a period and is bound to introduce additional instability.
I quite realise that my hon. Friend cannot alter the Order now, but I ask him to look at the point, which is, I think, a cogent one. I am sure that, throughout our consideration of this very delicate machinery and the very complex operation of egg marketing, we should all the time be looking at the long-term effect of what we are doing rather than the short-term advantage which, obviously, tends to appeal to most of the producers.
The Board's operations have come in for some criticism. The Board has had rather a rough time in recent months and, before I leave this matter, I should like to say that my own view is that it has really done well in an extremely difficult operation, the first three years of which were bound to reveal all kinds of problems which no one could foresee. It is true that the egg traders must buy from the Board if they want to buy from home markets. That is all right when demand is strong. On the other hand, when demand is weak the Board must sell to the egg traders, and then become prisoners of bondage. Undoubtedly


they have been behind the market from time to time.
There is another point which I should like to make about the machinery. In the weekly fixing of prices the Egg Marketing Board must carry out in order to establish its price for the week, I suspect that there has been far too much price fixing by committee, which is an absolutely impossible task when one is dealing with a market. It is difficult in a highly professional business to get the feel of the market and to know where demand exceeds supply or vice versa.
That is something which only one man can do, and the Board would, therefore, do far better if it appointed a competent man and instructed him to do the job. If he does it right, all is well. If he does it wrong, he may have to be replaced. But it is hopeless to try to settle a price of this kind in committee. It would be much better to appoint a competent man and trust him. He will eventually get the feel of the market and a much better result will be obtained than is obtained at present.
In concluding my remarks on this interesting but somewhat esoteric subject, I should like again to congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done and ask him to bear in mind the two points I have mentioned for the future. It may be that we could improve the machinery even further.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: The House is always interested in the contributions of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), because he puts his case so cogently and he is such an expert on his subject. It would be very risky for someone like myself to take him up on this subject, but there are few simple points which I, representing an agricultural constituency and with the interests of the small farmer at heart, would like to make.
I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). We understand that there is to be a cut-back in egg production. I should like to ask an elementary question. There will be a marginal reduction. We heard that from the hon. Member for Guildford. If there is a marginal reduction, as is envisaged, where is the burden of that cut-back to fall? Let me give a concrete example. I have over

3,000 farms in my constituency, but over 1,400 of them are of 20 acres or under. Some hon. Members would not call them farms, but a man and his wife and son or daughter work hard morning, noon and night on the hill farms in my constituency and make a living. Eggs and milk are their bread and butter. [Laughter.] That is absolutely apt. They have suffered all the time from market fluctuations. They have been asked to produce more eggs.
Is this marginal cut-back to be borne by the smaller people who are sometimes cast aside with a supercilious air and of whom it is said, "They are not efficient"? When the Government make this marginal cut, will a square deal be given to the very small producers who, when the country is in need, are called upon to produce as much as possible?
I do not want to bore the House. My point is clear. I want to see the very smallest people in this great industry protected. I want them to have some guarantees, which I fail to see under this Order; but that may be because I have not understood the Minister's point clearly.

10.0 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: May I, first, apologise to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for interrupting him in his speech introducing this Order? The interruption which I made was, I am afraid, inaccurate and I have since managed to detect my mistake. The comparison that I made of an increase of £28 million in the guarantee was the difference last year above that of the year before. I am sorry that I did not realise that Appendix V did not cover this year.
The matter which I should like particularly to touch upon is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent). It is the question of liability to taxation of the reserve fund. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us an assurance that marketing board reserve funds will all be treated in the same way as the Potato Marketing Board's reserve funds, which, I understand, are now exempt from taxation.
It is quite absurd, when we make an independent body such as the Potato Marketing Board or the Egg Marketing


Board responsible for administering the guarantee, to tax what they have been able to save in the process. It is not in the interests of the public purse, or of the taxpayer. I think that if there is a variation as between the Egg Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board, any arguments over the Egg Marketing Board will not damage the other case, because it is a great relief to us all to know the satisfactory outcome of that matter.
The other point arises out of the explanatory paragraph in page 22 of the White Paper which is implemented by Article 2 of this Order. In this whole question of the arrangements to be entered into between the Government and the Board are we to understand that an agreement has now been entered into with the Board? I should have thought that it ought to have been entered into before this Order was introduced. If it has not been, how soon will it be? I cannot see how this Order can be operable unless the agreement has been entered into.
Another question which I want to raise arises out of paragraph 10 (ii) of the explanatory paragraph in the White Paper, where it states that
The Board will allocate 40 per cent. of their share of the profits (i.e. 30 per cent. of the total profit) to a reserve fund and retain the balance for disposal as they see fit;
What scope does that give the Board? Can it, by doing that, increase the guarantee to individual producers, or can it use it for publicity purposes, or what? Perhaps my hon. Friend can satisfy us on that point.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I want to put only one point to my hon. Friend. I listened to his explanation of this Order and the objective that lies behind the machinery contained in it, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I also listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) refer to the Order as being a simple little Order. I do not think that the actual reading of the Order is very simple.
I have discovered during the last week or so that quite a number of people are extremely puzzled as to how the Order confirms the different points that have

been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Dispatch Box. I am wondering whether my hon. Friend can find any way of issuing a memorandum which would make the Order clearer even than his explanation tonight.
In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said, there is still a good deal of confusion as to the meaning of the Order, although we may understand its objective.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies, I wish to say something in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) has said. It is easy for my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell Members like myself that I am out of touch with my farmer constituents. I will send him specimens of county newspapers in the next 48 hours, so that he can see the anxieties which have been expressed, particularly on eggs.

Mr. Godber: I referred specifically to pigs.

Mr. Nabarro: We cannot go back to pigs now. But the censorious comment from Worcestershire farmers includes pigs and eggs, for the reasons expressed by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), namely, that these are principally the staple commodities of the small man, the man farming less than 20 acres, of whom I have hundreds in my constituency, and large numbers of them are concerned primarily with pigs.
One of the things which worries my smallholder constituents and myself is the near-impossibility of understanding machinery of the kind which was read out to us this evening with the utmost fluency by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I congratulate him upon being able to gabble fluently. I shall read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning and, no doubt, my poor brain will understand its purport.
The plain fact is that I cannot understand every aspect of the present arrangements enshrined in the Order. If I cannot understand them, I would not expect the smallholders in my constituency to


understand them. The present position with eggs reflected by the Order is that the subsidy is costing £36½ million. It amounts to roughly 1d. per egg. It is almost one-third of the market price of eggs. I formed the impression that at certain times of the year eggs were being sold in the shops so cheaply that more and more money is being heaped on the subsidy every year. And so we have a continuing policy on the part of the Government of cutting the guarantees systematically every year and bringing to the House Orders of the kind that we have before us this evening. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not quarrel with me when I interpret the eggs position. He is an expert farmer. I am a poor industrialist.

Mr. Jack Jones: So the hon. Member would have us believe.

Mr. Nabarro: I recognise the hon. Member as an authority on steel, but not on eggs.

Mr. Jones: It is a subsidy. It is the same thing.

Mr. Nabarro: We cannot talk about steel tonight. If I interpret the Order and the eggs position correctly, it is surely that last year too many eggs were produced at too high a subsidy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me.

Mr. Jones: Tonight, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) advocated the appointment of a Government director to look after eggs. Last week, when we advocated the appointment of a good chap to look after steel, the whole of the blooming benches opposite voted against us.

Mr. Nabarro: "Blooming" is a most un-Parliamentary word.

Mr. Jones: It serves my purpose.

Mr. Nabarro: It may suit the hon. Member's purpose, but I cannot talk about steel tonight. I am talking about eggs.

Mr. Jones: And the subsidy.

Mr. Nabarro: The subsidy is a very heavy, if not intolerable, burden on the taxpayers. All that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is doing in the Order is altering the machinery for

paying for the subsidy. I hope that when he replies he will tell us why he considers a heavy subsidy of this kind to be necessary at all. He would still be in order within the terms of the Statutory Instrument which is before us.

Mr. Jones: The lion has to be stamped on the eggs.

Mr. Nabarro: It is all very well for the hon. Member to attempt to heckle me. I am quite used to that kind of thing, but I am trying to talk about eggs, not steel.
The subsidy, at £36½ million, is becoming an intolerable burden on the taxpayers' shoulders. A few years ago, we had an exact analogy. We spent a long time in this House arguing whether we should subsidise everybody's bread. Eventually, after immense pressure from the Government back benches, the bread subsidy was cancelled. I hope that tonight's Order will lead on to a position whereby, without prejudice to price support for egg production we might dispose of the greater part of the subsidy, because I believe that the two things are not incompatible. If the consumer has to pay more, why not? The consumer is paying for his eggs today partly over the counter and partly through his taxes in the form of this subsidy.
There is this complicated machinery gabbled so fluently, I repeat, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary this evening. He went so fast that it was impossible for any layman such as I to keep up with him. The complexities inherent in the marketing system for eggs today are such that hardly anyone inside or outside the British Egg Marketing Board understands it.
A few months ago I was commissioned, without fee, to take the chair at the Royal Society of Arts. Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is about eggs. It is in the Order. I was commissioned to take the chair at a forum of all the interests producing eggs, marketing eggs, the British Egg Marketing Board, the consumer interests, the hatchery interests, and the rest. The controversy about the machinery for marketing eggs enshrined in the Order was the most acute that I have ever listened to. It was evident to me, sitting in as chairman, that an awful lot of people speaking there—and the controversy raged for


three hours—were themselves engaged in the trade—I do not call it an industry. They were really appalled by the complexities now thrust upon them by what the Parliamentary Secretary is pleased to call machinery for implementing support for egg prices.
If my hon. Friend doubts all that, he will get a number of county newspapers from me this week. I have a report here of the Royal Society of Arts in the January, 1960, issue of Fullo'-Pep News. [An HON. MEMBER: "Advertising."] I am not advertising. It may be a trade name, but it is also a form of egg food. But the meeting is accurately reported. I will send a copy along to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, because the point I am trying to make is that lack of understanding of this complicated machinery which is being dealt with in the Order tonight is in itself a major contributory cause of the grave anxiety felt today by a large number of egg producers and distributors. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not respond by telling me that I am out of touch with egg producers in my constituency, that I have no knowledge 6f this matter, that they are not suffering any anxiety, and that Her Majesty's Government in the context of egg prices are magnificent.
There is the greatest anxiety among egg producers. They are fed up with the Government over reducing the price. I know not whether the Government are correct in reducing the price, but I know that I want simplification of our machinery called delegated legislation for dealing with eggs, and I want earnest consideration given to a lightening of this intolerable burden of £36·5 million for a support for eggs, which in effect means that the consumer of eggs is paying for three-parts of the cost of the egg over the counter and one part, or approximately 25 per cent.—and at certain times of the year 30 per cent.—in one form or another of his taxes.

Mr. Harold Davies: I agree in the main with the hon. Member. I am concerned with the small producer of eggs, but in view of the dynamic criticism made by the hon. Member, would he support me in putting a Motion on the Order Paper that the time has now come

to investigate completely the entire system of agricultural subsidies?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): That certainly cannot arise on the Motion.

Mr. Godber: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend must not be impetuous. I want to reply, but—

Colonel Richard Glyn: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: In a minute. I should be out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of course, if I responded to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies).

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) should give way to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Colonel Richard Glyn).

Mr. Nabarro: I am not finished, but I will give way. As for the hon. Member for Leek, who has a constituency not dissimilar to mine and has large numbers of smallholders engaged in egg production, I will go as far as this. If he puts a Motion on the Order Paper asking for urgent investigation of the whole of the machinery for payment of subsidies and associated matters in connection with egg production and distribution, as referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Statutory Instrument, I would join with him in requesting an investigation of that kind. Now my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to intervene?

Colonel Richard Glyn: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend, and I am sure we are all interested in his experiences with "Fullo'pep" which have so greatly affected him—

Mr. Nabarro: Idid not take "Fullo'pep".

Colonel Glyn: I want to say that whereas he is right to point out that the bread subsidy was not in the interests of all taxpayers—thanks to our medical advisers who speak to us about dietary rules, there are a number of taxpayers who wisely avoid bread—nevertheless there are very few taxpayers who do not at some stage of their career use eggs, either in cooking or in cakes. My hon. Friend is pointing out the large burden


on the taxpayer, of which we are all conscious, but he seems to take the view that it is unfortunate that the egg consumer should only pay for part of the value of the egg he consumes directly in the price and my hon. Friend objects to his paying the rest in tax. I suggest that this is not an analogy with the bread subsidy, because it is clear that whereas everybody eats eggs not everybody eats bread.

Mr. Nabarro: I cannot go into the details of bread consumption on this Order, but I can reply, and I think be within the rules of order, Mr. Speaker, in saying that 98 per cent. of the people of this country eat bread and I should have thought that 98 per cent. of the people of this country consume eggs. Whether they are the same 98 per cent. no one can say.

Mr. Willey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am only regretfully looking back at the speech I might have made if I had realised that the debate might go so wide—

Mr. Nabarro: I am not out of order.

Mr. Willey: I am on a point of order. As I understand this Order, the point we are on at present is the substitution of one article of the principal Order by another. Surely it is not in order on such an Order to discuss the principal Order?

Mr. Speaker: I am at a slight disadvantage because at the moment I returned to the Chair I was not certain who was intervening upon whom, or how the medical advice tendered to one hon. Member, apparently in relation to the consumption of bread, had anything to do with hens' eggs or ducks' eggs. I hope hon. Members will seek strictly to keep in order. It is insufferable that we should not.

Mr. Nabarro: I am trying terribly hard, Mr. Speaker, but as you know, we have had from the Minister a reference to the British Egg Marketing Board and the need for increasing the consumption of eggs. They are both connected with the change in method and machinery referred to in this Order. As most of us eat two eggs on toast at some time or other in the course of a working day, it is difficult to dissociate eggs from bread.
Now I will return to the serious point in this Order. The whole of the

machinery for the production and distribution of eggs, and the support prices associated with it, has now become such an appalling tangle that not only am I incapable of understanding what machinery is to be used in the next twelve months but my farmer constituents, and notably egg producers, are completely befogged by an Order of this kind. All they know is that they have responded to the call for increased egg production by raising their individual standards of efficiency, and in return for that splendid effort they have had the price reduced again this year.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not deny that there is anxiety among egg producers in my constituency. If he does deny it, I will give him an appropriate answer very quickly, and excite an agitation in my constituency to give vent to this grievance directed against the Minister and himself. I know my farmers well. I am closely in touch with them and they know me personally. It is nothing short of impertinence to indicate otherwise to them.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I seem to have incurred the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) quite unfairly but I am willing to be judged by the House. All I said in dealing with the previous Order was that the subject matter was not one which I thought would have angered producers. My answers seem to have angered my hon. Friend and to have coloured his remarks on this particular Order.
I will try to deal in due course with some of the points that he raised, but, first, I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). He realised, of course, the difficulty, as most of us do, of trying to discuss matters which go very much wider, but clearly, in a machinery Order, it is impossible for most of us to do that. It is difficult, therefore, for me to reply in any detail to a number of the points raised tonight.
It is true that the egg subsidy figure is high. It is also true that this Order is complicated. I sought in my opening remarks to explain just what we were trying to do. In so far as the total of the subsidy is concerned, the White Paper sets out the position very clearly—that


we feel that under existing conditions, until an increase in consumption can be stimulated, it is essential to get some reduction in production, which must be related to the need for fresh eggs. The difficulty at present is that a considerable number have to be broken out and sold at a very much lower price. That is one of the difficulties we have to face, but it is somewhat outside the scope of this Order.
The Order seeks to amend, in the light of experience, the manner in which we implement this particular guarantee. It has been an extremely complicated one, but I think that hon. Members will find that the new system is not quite so complicated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) made so clear in his very interesting and helpful intervention, this is a matter on which one has to try to get agreement with the National Farmers' Unions. It was on the basis of that agreement that the initial arrangement was entered into, and it is by an agreement entered into in the light of experience of the operation of the original system that we have made these amendments.
I believe that these will have a considerable effect in reducing those fluctuations to which my right hon. Friend has referred and to which I have referred again today. The change will avoid these wide fluctuations. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that my right hon. Friend had pointed out that, in effect, we were cutting the guarantee, but that that could mean an increase in actual returns to producers. Under the profit and loss snaring bank which we have been operating producers suffer the full first 2d. of the loss. That will not be the case under the new arrangement and they will have an immediate saving there.
There is also the effect of the assessment of the estimated average price which is on the weighted average of the two previous years, giving a double weighting in the last year. If the price has been lower in the previous year it gives a better average to the producers in the ensuing year. So I think it is reasonable to say that this could happen.
But it must be remembered that the price was artificially depressed in the previous year. We then made a cut of 1d., but because of the effect of the

band it was depressed considerably more. This coming year, the effect of the previous year will be corrected, or so we hope. To that extent, it can bring about a situation which the hon. Member would regard as surprising.

Mr. Willey: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am concerned with the estimate that was made for the purposes of the Annual Price Review— not whether this is possible, but whether it was estimated that this would result. As I understand, it was estimated that there would be a reduction in the return to the purchaser in the forthcoming year.

Mr. Godber: The £4½ million figure that I gave him was the effect of the l·38d. cut—the actual cut, irrespective of the changes in actual returns, which are difficult to evaluate precisely in relation to the estimates which we put forward.
The hon. Member then dealt fairly generally with some of the problems facing the egg industry. We need to reduce production until such time as we can obtain increased consumption. But it is only right—in spite of the strong words which he used at one stage—to face the difficulty posed by the fact that we have a definite excess production, and that there is this considerable cost of £36½ million to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster referred. It would have been wrong for us to have ignored that cost. It is necessary to reduce that to a somewhat lower figure. When it is working out at 1d. an egg it is a very big proportion.

Mr. Nabarro: That is what I said.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford asked me a specific point in relation to the reserve fund. He indicated that it would be of little value if it were subject to tax. This is a matter which must be discussed and decided by the Inland Revenue authorities, and I cannot anticipate what they will say, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) pointed out, another board has been able to get a satisfactory arrangement, and if the Inland Revenue authorities can be satisfied about the method upon which the reserve fund will be operated the Egg Marketing Board should be able


to benefit from the provision in the 1952 Finance Act. It would cover the same point. I see no reason to be unduly worried about that.
My hon. and gallant Friend also suggested that we should consider spreading the estimated average selling price over a five-year period instead of the two-year period on which we operate at present. I should like to examine that point. We have not yet had a five-year period on which to judge, even if we wished to do so. When we first made this arrangement with the Egg Marketing Board we had to make an approximation in respect of the first year. In the past two years we have operated this system, which seems to work fairly well, but we will keep it under review and see whether any amendment is necessary.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) spoke up for his small farmers. I know the problems of his area, but I would remind him that my right hon. Friend has been very conscious of the need to look after the interests of small farmers, and it was for that reason that, last year, we introduced the Small Farmers' Scheme, which has proved very helpful to the farmers in his area, as well as to others. But it would be impossible to differentiate between one type of farmer and another. We have to state clearly what the objectives must be. It was for that reason that the Small Farmers' Scheme took particular account of the needs of the small farmers. I am sure that it is the way to help make them more viable and efficient, whatever they are producing.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely was kind enough to apologise for his intervention when I was speaking earlier. I was grateful to him. I admit that I was a little puzzled by the figure, but I have since been able to track it down. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, it related to the previous year and there is no need for me to comment further, because my hon. and gallant Friend appreciated that.
However, he also asked me a question about the reserve fund, which is mentioned in the White Paper, and he wanted to know what the Board would do with the remainder of the profit. The answer is that the Board will be able

to utilise it in any way it sees fit, for helping prices to producers, for publicity, or any other purpose which is appropriate, but the Board will have to spend it in the financial year if it is not to attract tax.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) asked for a simple explanation. I sympathise with him, because this is a complicated subject and I apologise for having to weary the House with it. However, in the White Paper we tried to set it out more simply and I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be able to follow it. If not, I shall be happy to provide further explanation.

Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend consider some form of simple pamphlet for distribution among farmers interested in this matter? Could not there be a pamphlet to show how the machinery works?

Mr. Godber: I will look into that. I am most anxious that farmers should fully realise how the machinery works. However, this is a rather difficult matter, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster also made. Incidentally, my hon. Friend accused me of gabbling. No one would accuse my hon. Friend of gabbling, whatever else one might say. His stentorian tones ring round the Chamber with absolute clarity and I had no difficulty in hearing what he was saying on this occasion. I am sorry if I have hurt his feelings about his connection with his farmers.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend cannot do that.

Mr. Godber: I did not think that I could. I should be most surprised if I had, as I would have been the first person to achieve that. However, I am aware of his connection with his farmers. He consults me about their problems and I have not the least hesitation in saying that he is very well aware of their problems and difficulties.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has referred to the complexities of this machinery. Complexity is the sacred cow of the bureaucracy. Will not my hon. Friend respond to my appeal for simplification of the machinery? Is there no means of spring-cleaning his Ministry and getting a simple and businesslike arrangement instead of this welter of complexities?

Mr. Speaker: Sacred cows and spring-cleaning Ministries are a long way from the Order.

Mr. Godber: I will endeavour not to follow what my hon. Friend said about sacred cows. I have every sympathy with his desire for simplicity. However, as I have said, we have to do these things with a measure of agreement with the producers concerned and take their views into account and it is very difficult to find a simple way. I am entirely with my hon. Friend in wanting to get rid of complexity, but it is not easy to do so when one gets down to the problem.
I realise the strictures he has made about the intolerable burden, as I think he called it, of the £36½ million, but I would not share that view with him. As we have indicated in the White Paper, it is our wish and intention to see it reduced, but, having undertaken in the 1947 Act, and having reinforced in the 1957 Act, our duties to the farmers, I certainly would not wish to see us depart in any way from those undertakings made to them. If, in fact, it has meant a heavy bill in this case it is money well spent so long as we give the farmers incentive and encouragement, as we are trying to do, to bring their production more into line with the needs of the market, but I would not subscribe to the description of this as an intolerable burden. How one can say that while, at the same time, standing up for the farmers, is difficult to understand.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has not responded fairly. I said "without prejudice to price support". I deliberately used the words, "without prejudice to price support". That is standing up for the farmers and is exactly in accord with Conservative Party policy.

Mr. Godber: I should be very pleased to follow this argument with my hon. Friend for some time, but how one can produce this result without prejudice to price support, I cannot see. But that is a matter I can discuss with him at some other time. We are bound to

honour our obligations to the farmers and I am glad that he supports me in that. I felt sure that he would. That being so, it is our duty to reduce this particular element of our guaranteed price arrangements, which, as my right hon. Friend has said, is a large one, and that is one of the reasons why we have said, in the White Paper, that we wish to see a reduction in the number of eggs coming forward.

Mr. Willey: As the hon. Gentleman is referring to the White Paper, if he turns to page 23 he will see that it says, in paragraph 10:
The ultimate shares of the Board and the Government in profits and losses have been so fixed that the guarantees for hen and duck eggs to be provided under the revised arrangements are estimated to be equivalent in value to those which would have been provided under the previous arrangements if they had been continued.
Does that mean, as I have suggested, that the income from eggs is to be cut by £4½ million and that the Order we are discussing does not affect that position?

Mr. Godber: That is perfectly true. The Order we are discussing does not affect that. It is providing an equivalent. I may have been led some distance away by my hon. Friend into these wider issues, but it is true that the Order is purely a machinery Order providing an equivalent method of providing this measure of support.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster that I am aware of the feelings of his egg producers and assure him that I can understand the views he has expressed on their behalf tonight. I hope that he will forgave me if I have hurt his feelings in this matter. It certainly was not my intention to do so, but if I have done so I have broken new ground in the House of Commons.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960. No. 427), dated 15th March 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HORROR FILMS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. J. E. B. Hill]

10.38 p.m.

Captain Richard Pilkington: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask you very kindly to switch your attention from pigs and eggs to the problems of some films, bad films. I think the vast majority of people in the country and in this House are very concerned with the growing wave of crime and brutality that there has been since the war. That crime wave has been particularly evident among the young people of our nation, the people to whom we have to look for the leaders of the future.
For this unfortunate tendency there are perhaps half a dozen reasons: homes disrupted by the war, inadequate schooling facilities, inadequate discipline, not enough effective religious training, not enough clubs and recreational facilities, not enough police, and may be some other considerations. About all these things I have mentioned something is being done, but there is one cause for this bad trend in behaviour about which very little is being done, but which is the easiest of all the factors to tackle. Today, most regrettably, a deliberate exploitation of the baser, crueller and more bestial instincts of mankind is being made by some films, some T.V. plays and some newspapers. A cutting I have here refers to a T.V. feature the other day under the heading, "Sadism." In the papers this morning and last night there is a quotation from a statement made by a boy aged ten.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is sub judice, I think, at present.

Captain Pilkington: Mr. Speaker, may I quote from a newspaper?

Mr. Speaker: No, because we do not know at this moment whether that statement is a matter of controversy. It is sub judice.

Captain Pilkington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I accept your Ruling. There is, in other respects, a deliberate exploitation of the more unpleasant features of crime. This is

being made, not only by T.V., instances of which will occur to hon. Members, but also in the newspapers. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) referred to some of the headlines in the News of the World on this subject in the debate on 21st March.
Tonight, I am concerned particularly with some of the films which are deliberately exploiting and degrading the existing tendency in some members of the public to whom these films appeal. If modern youth is to be conditioned to the violence and brutality to which I have referred, as before the war were the Hitler youth, we shall have the crime waves to which I have referred.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member. I am afraid that he will have to satisfy me that there is some Ministerial responsibility for the realm in which he is talking. He may be in order, but I have not in mind something which would get him into order on that basis. Perhaps he can help me.

Captain Pilkington: Mr. Speaker, I was going to set out the case and then indicate how I thought that the Minister would be able to help in dealing with this matter—not, of course, in legislation, which I understand is out of order. I think that if I make my case and then indicate how I think that he could have some effect upon this matter, it will meet the point you have made.

Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to disturb the hon. and gallant Member unduly, but perhaps if he could reverse the process and indicate how or in what way some Ministerial responsibility might arise I may not have to interrupt him further, but I am under an obligation to be satisfied about that.

Captain Pilkington: I was going to say when I had set out my case that I was not suggesting any sort of legislation but that I did think that the Government had some way of making their will effective, that I hoped that they would show that they felt some responsibility for this, and that I hoped that my hon. Friend would consult his colleagues to see what action he could take.

Mr. Speaker: That leaves me in great difficulty. Can the hon. Gentleman indicate some way in which he suggests, in the absence of new legislation, there is Ministerial responsibility in this matter?

Captain Pilkington: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the Government are responsible to a large extent for the behaviour of the community and are concerned at the existence of this crime wave and, therefore, are interested in anything likely to produce it. That is surely the responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Speaker: They are no doubt interested in that, but to bring this in order one has to find, apart from new legislation, some way in which responsibility can be imposed upon the Minister. At present, I find some difficulty in trying to help the hon. Member.

Captain Pilkington: I, too, Mr. Speaker, am finding some difficulty in trying to satisfy your quite proper attitude in this matter, but the censoring of the sort of films about which I shall quote comes primarily under the British Board of Film Censors, and I was under the impression that the Government have some contact with that Board. It is along that channel that I suggest the Minister would be able to function.

Mr. Speaker: I see that the Joint Under-Secretary is here, but I do not think that one could say that he was responsible for the activities of that Board. If the right hon. Gentleman were to help me, I would accept correction if he thought that I was wrong, but as at present advised I do not think that it is so; otherwise, it would be a method by which one could assist the hon. and gallant Member.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Although we have an interest in the British Board of Film Censors, Mr. Speaker, we have no responsibility for its actions. We have some responsibility from the point of view of local authority interest in films, and my hon. and gallant Friend might possibly devote himself to that aspect.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the Minister for his help in the matter.

Captain Pilkington: I, too, am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his suggestion, and, strictly pursuing that line, I should like very briefly to quote the circumstances leading to my attempting to raise the matter now. I shall not take my own judgment but will quote some extracts from four different newspapers, all very different in character, referring to some of these films which are likely to have such a very unfortunate effect upon the community.
I quote, first, from a review appearing in the Sunday Express of 27th September, 1959. It referred to a film called "The Mummy," at the London Pavilion, and the following sentences are germane, I think, to what I am putting to the House. The review states:
But we are now given a flash-back of Princess Ananka, describing the circumstances of her death.
The only reason for doing this, as far as I can see, is to give you a close up of the way to cut off a man's tongue.
Why put that in? Because the film's makers (Hammer Films), who have made a lot of money out of doing this sort of thing, believe that you will pay to see it—especially if it is in Technicolour.
My second quotation is from the Daily Herald of 29th October, 1959, and refers to a film called "Eyes Without A Face," at the Cameo-Royal. It says:
The daughter of a famous French surgeon is badly injured … and has 'an enormous wound instead of a face.
Only the eyes are intact.'
While she lopes about the house wearing a mask, Dad lures girls to his clinic, where he removes their faces and tries them on his daughter for size.
He has already been successful with the same trick on dogs.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for reading some of these details, but the review goes on to say:
Finally, the daughter goes mad, and lets loose the dogs, who tear Dad to pieces … The lingering and obscene eye of the camera focusses on the following: The daughter taking off her mask (in close-up); the surgeon drawing a pencil round a girl's face as she lies on the operating table, then tracing the line with his scalpel (in close-up); the surgeon beginning to peel off the girl's face (in close-up); the face of the surgeon after a score of dogs have got at it (in close-up).
The review very rightly comments
'Eyes Without a Face' is a piece of revolting, pandering evil rubbish. I wonder what the censor was up to, the day he gave this film an X certificate.


The next quotation comes from The Times of 5 th October last, and refers to a film called "The Man Who Could Cheat Death." It calls it:
A horror film from the Hammer stable, which specialises in this murky line of country….
It goes on to say:
… there is something exceedingly nasty about the introduction of surgical instruments, and the scalpel here gets a little scene to itself.
My final quotation comes from the Sunday Times of December 6th and refers to a film called "The Stranglers of Bombay," shown at the London Pavilion, the director of which was Terence Fisher. One sentence in the review ends:
… a revolting little exercise in mutilation. For horrible tots and senile delinquents.
Having put these revolting details before the House, I suggest that I have made my case that a deplorable state of affairs exists today. Perhaps I should not mention in any detail the British Board of Film Censors, but I hope that the local authorities will echo the sentiment behind a statement actually coming from the Board that people are concerned at the increasing production of films in which violence and brutality figure in degrading forms.
If this be the case, what are we to do about it? Can the Minister do anything about it through the local authorities or in any other way? I am sure it would be accepted by all decent people that foulness of this kind ought to stop. If film directors, television producers and newspaper proprietors have not themselves sufficient conscience to do anything, and if those charged with responsibility, whether it be the local authorities or anyone else, cannot do it, I suggest that the Government ought somehow to exercise the influence which they undoubtedly have to see that this sort of business is checked.
I know that my right hon. Friend is in a somewhat difficult position, because it is not wholly his responsibility, but he has been kind enough to help me already so that I can make my case. I very much hope that he will have something helpful to say in reply.

10.52 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) on raising this topic in the

very difficult circumstances of an Adjournment debate. I shall address myself to something for which the Minister has direct responsibility. His Department some years ago introduced and had passed the Children Act, which governs the admission of children to cinemas. I am worried about our children growing up in the atmosphere of crime and violence which we see shown in our cinemas. The Minister has to carry out certain Regulations, and I urge him to ensure that they are carried out so that at any rate our young children are protected as the law says they ought to be against the kind of exhibition to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred.
I hope very much that some day the House of Commons will be able to debate the broader issue.

10.53 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I shall, I think, find it easier to address my remarks to the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) than to that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington), although I fully understand my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety about this particular issue. In raising this subject tonight, he is one of the many both within the House and outside it who are, quite rightly, searching for the causes of juvenile delinquency, about which no responsible person, let alone the Home Office Ministers, can possibly feel complacent.
In another field, others are searching for ways of dealing with young offenders. Important as this is, I think the more important matter is to try to understand and eliminate the causes of crime, particularly juvenile crime. Hon. Members will be aware, on this wider aspect, of the interest of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the matter. I am now dealing with crime in general, because last year's White Paper on Penal Practice in a Changing Society gave some information about the Home Office Research Unit and the Cambridge Institute of Criminology.
More recently, my right hon. Friend has been considering what studies bearing more directly on the causes of delinquency might be undertaken. This


is a large and difficult subject for research. Last January—this was taken up by the Press—several leading research workers and others interested in delinquency were asked to confer with senior members of the Home Office and other Government Departments.
I mention this because I think that one cannot tackle the subject of the debate without looking at the wider aspect of the subject. Although each of us may think at times that we know the answer to the causes of crime, or at least the answer to the cause of one particular crime, I think that the view expressed by the conference in January and in many other places in recent months is that there is no easy answer to this problem, and that further research is needed.
As the hon. Member for Itchen knows, I was a member of the Albemarle Committee on Youth Service which had some interest in this subject. There again the Committee came to the conclusion that there was no one answer to this problem, particularly the problem of juvenile crime. Following the conference in January, I hope that some further broadly based studies on this wider subject will be undertaken.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): Could I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what he may be well aware of already, namely, that in the survey of leisure by Rowntree and Lauers in 1949 and quoted in "English Life and Leisure," an American survey on the causes of juvenile delinquency, the conclusion was that films of this kind—calculated to be 2½5 per cent. of the films shown in cinemas—had little or no effect on juvenile delinquency?

Mr. Vosper: I am aware of that survey but not of that conclusion.
The only survey undertaken in this country was in 1950, when a Departmental Committee examined the question of children and the cinema. At that stage the Committee found that the results of its inquiry did not fasten on the cinema any primary share of responsibility for the delinquency and moral laxity of children under 16. I gathered from what my hon. and gallant Friend said that he thought that the position

had worsened since then, but I have no positive evidence to that effect.
Although this inquiry and, I believe, subsequent evidence have not found the cinema particularly to blame in this respect, there are undoubtedly occasions when young children are affected adversely by what they see on the screen. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend is quite justified in drawing attention to this aspect of the problem.
I think that there is a moral responsibility on all of those connected with the production, distribution and exhibition of films to be constantly aware of this danger and to ensure of their own free choice that no matter which would encourage a person to commit a crime or to indulge in anti-social behaviour should be permitted. It would be best, of course, if all this could be undertaken as a matter of voluntary restraint, but it has rightly been thought necessary to impose some machinery of censorship so as to limit any excesses which may escape the producer.
There is, of course, no State censorship of films in this country, but there is what one might describe as a two-tier system. In the first tier there is the British Board of Film Censors, appointed by the trade but consisting of persons with no financial interest in the trade. This Board sees every film before it is released for distribution. It may approve it, it may impose cuts or it may reject it entirely. Justification for the Board's existence is indicated by the fact that it fairly frequently imposes cuts on films and on occasions—as on a recent occasion—it rejects a film.
If the film is approved it is given a "U" certificate if considered fit for unrestricted exhibition, an "A" certificate if considered more suitable for exhibition to adult audiences, and an "X" certificate if regarded as suitable only for exhibition when no child under the age of 16 is present. There is no direct Home Office responsibility, but quite naturally as it plays a part in the general arrangement of censorship the Home Office keeps close association with the British Board of Film Censors.
The second tier consists of the local authorities who derive their powers from the Cinematograph Acts of 1909 and 1952. The authorities are the county and county borough councils, but their


powers can be and often are delegated to committees of themselves or to justices sitting in petty sessions. They can also delegate to non-county borough or district councils. These local authorities can accept the decision of the Board of Film Censors or they can vary it to suit the needs of their localities. Thus they can refuse permission for a film which has received the Board's certificate, but they can also approve a film which the Board has rejected, and furthermore they can alter the Board's classification of a film. Although on occasion the Board and a local authority may take different views on the merits of a particular film, the ultimate decision about a film—and this is why I think, with respect, what my hon. and gallant Friend had to say was in order—rests with the local authority.
On the majority of occasions, as far as I can ascertain, the local authorities do act in accordance with the Board's decisions. I understand that a conference will shortly be convened between the Board of Film Censors and the local authority associations to discuss their respective interests and to see whether any greater co-ordination of views can be achieved. I understand that this conference will take place within the next few weeks.
In view of this debate, I took the opportunity yesterday of discussing the policy of the Board with one of its representatives. The Board has no formal written code, but I think it is fair to say that it is very much concerned about the type of film which my hon. and gallant Friend described, but particularly the type of film depicting crime and violence which could be copied by others, especially by young people. I think it is the imitating of crimes in films which may on occasion lead to crimes in actual practice.
It is, therefore, the practice of the Board to reject or cut those films which portray crime of a kind which might give encouragement to young people to go out and commit in real life a crime which they have just seen in a film; and, in particular, the Board normally cut out any scenes where reference is made to the use of a flick knife, knuckledusters or any other weapons of that nature which a young person or any young criminal could copy from the film if he were so inclined.
The Board told me that it also adopts a similar strict approach towards films which encourage anti-social behaviour, especially amongst young people.

Captain Pilkington: Would my right hon. Friend deal with the question of brutality to which I referred?

Mr. Vosper: I was coming to that point.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to horror films. I think the public, on the whole, regard the horror film as a film of a Dracula type. Despite what my hon. and gallant Friend said, and despite the Press criticisms, I think these are somewhat infrequent nowadays. The Board accepts what it regards as legitimate horror films, but it removes scenes which appear to it as disgusting or repulsive, and it invariably places horror films in the "X" category, which means that they must not be shown to children. Although one does not wish to see horror films encouraged, with respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, they are probably not quite so dangerous, in the sense that members of the audience are not likely to go out into the street and commit a crime of some monstrous activity, as those films depicting the committal of a crime which is of a type that they can copy in real life.
I think that possibly some of my hon. and gallant Friend's anxieties derive from advertisements and Press comment on films of this nature, and this is a matter which has been brought to my notice on several occasions recently. There may be a tendency to try to advertise these films by drawing attention to the more lurid details of a film which is about to be shown. This is a matter which has caused some concern recently.
Under the existing powers it is possible for the local authority to control the nature of an advertisement shown on the outside of a cinema itself. It is much more doubtful whether these powers extend to other places. Moreover there is certainly no power to prevent the distributor, in a newspaper advertisement, from proclaiming the sensational nature of his film. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend considers that powers should be taken to control advertisements of this nature. Again, it is a thing one would


wish to be undertaken by voluntary restraint. I would, however, put the following point to my hon. and gallant Friend and the House, because I think it is the general experience—certainly it is the experience of the Board itself. The films themselves seldom fulfil the sensational nature of their advertisements, and very often they do not come up to the sensational nature of the Press comments upon their contents.
Speaking from my own experience, I think that some of those who criticise films do so on the strength of the advertisements, and sometimes on the Press comments, which do not always give a fair appreciation of the film itself. Nevertheless, on this point, which is causing some concern, I hope that those responsible for these advertisements will use a greater degree of restraint. It may be that the existing powers require further examination in this respect.
In conclusion, I would say that my hon. and gallant Friend has done a

valuable service in raising this matter, although there is a limit to Government responsibility, and I hope that his words will come to the notice of those who have an interest in the production, distribution and exhibition of these films. In all matters of censorship—and I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen has this very much in mind—it is important to preserve a balance between a sense of liberty on the one hand and a desire to prevent the excesses to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred on the other. But, in general, I think that the existing two-tier system of censorship— part of it voluntary—performs a useful task. What my hon. and gallant Friend has said will come to the notice of those engaged in censorship and in the production of films, and for that reason I think that this debate had been of use.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.